February 12, 2010

Below is a guest post by my friend in Taiwan Bill Stimson. This post doesn’t necessarily reflect my own viewpoint on the subject. There are a few points, in fact, that I’d take issue with, though I agree with the piece in spirit.

Information Imperialism?

by William R. Stimson

What if the Chinese government stopped lying to its people and admitted inconvenient truths? What if some in power were swept away as a result and others arose to take their place? Would this be the end of China as we know it? Would this spell the defeat of Chinese culture at the hands of the West?

Look at Taiwan. An opposition party, free elections, an uncensored Internet – still the environment is one every Chinese would recognize and feel at home in. These necessary modern developments are not a threat to China or its culture. The only ones they might threaten are those who grab for themselves a bit too much of what belongs to all. To preserve their prerogative to do this, and pass this on to their children, though it be at the expense of their culture, their nation, their people, and even their Communist ideology – this tiny percentage of the population in the People’s Republic strives at all cost to cover up what it is doing. It’s dishonest to its own people. It does everything in its power to prevent embarrassing truths from reaching them from foreign sources.

This latest bundle of untruths – that the Chinese Internet is open, the United States uses the Internet to dominate the world, and Western insistence on an uncensored Internet amounts to “information imperialism” because less-developed nations like China cannot possibly compete when it comes to information flow – contains one very interesting admission that has curiously not received the attention it deserves. Lies cannot stand, they’re not convincing, unless bundled with truths. The truth in all these falsehoods is that to the extent China continues to shackle itself by dominating the flow of information to its people, then no matter what impressive external manifestations of progress and prosperity it manages to feather itself with, in substance it remains, in the most important respect, a less-developed country and one that can never catch up.

The Chinese government’s cyber attack on Google is telling. A system that is closed, controlled, and dominated by a small minority – which is not the most creative or innovative segment of the society – can only progress by stealing or grabbing what does not belong to it. China’s whole foreign policy seems to boil down to grabbing Taiwan and preventing any discussion of how it grabbed Tibet. It unconscionably befriends whatever unsavory regime it needs to in order to grab resources. It’s even intent on grabbing tiny little islands way out at sea from neighboring countries all around. China is already big enough. What it has of most value is already inside it – it’s people and their superior creative potential. It needs to grab nothing. It needs instead to release its people’s vast potential so that it can stop being wasted; and the world needs this too of China.

Nobody knows from what tiny point in China’s vast society its most creative and innovative element might spring. It can come from anywhere, so everywhere needs to be free. Who could have predicted, for example, that a particular little Jewish boy brought by his father from Communist Russia to America would grow up to drop out of Stanford and become the co-founder of Google. Sergey Brin was a wonder who came, like true creative innovation always does, out of the blue.

How different is Google’s view of information to that of the Chinese government. It’s not about domination at all – but freedom and empowerment of the disenfranchised and downtrodden. How ironic that a Communist regime views information as a means to dominate while Google, an American company, views it as a means to liberate. Things are not what they seem. The consensus that China, in its present form, is the future begins to look wrong. The future may actually be Google, or some combination of China and Google. The company has hit upon a new way to do business that’s not the tired old exploitative American capitalism, which fits in so well with Beijing’s schemes – but that’s not Communism either. Rather it falls somewhere in between. This business organization has found a way to earn money by benefiting the collective, and doing it in a way that enables and develops the creative vision of its employees. Google does business in a different way. There is no end of riches in the direction it’s taken and no end of business niches where its ideas can be replicated and further developed. More profit can be made by cultivating than by exploiting people and the planet. It’s that simple. Compare this to Chinese companies that put poison in toys and fake protein in baby formulas.

This venture that Google has started out on in the end can’t help but make China and the U.S. partners rather than adversaries. It behooves the Chinese government to rise to the occasion and let Google come through unfettered to the Chinese people. Whatever destabilizing effects this may have on China’s corrupt bosses will be offset a million times over by the deeper stabilization that can’t help but arise as thousands of Chinese Sergey Brins are empowered to surface from the most marginal and unlikely spots all over China’s vast map with innovations that make China’s glitzy prosperity and progress not just a surface phenomenon based on what has been grabbed, stolen, or diverted from the West – but a true manifestation of China’s underlying cultural greatness and the genius of its people.

The Discussion: 298 Comments

agree, there in spirit, but this argument is way off. google makes around 98% of their revenue from advertising, hardly a novel business model. creating the best search engine, webmail platform, etc affects their bottom line like any other capitalist product. they just aired a super bowl ad, by the way.

but my major issue is with the straw man comparison of the chinese vs US internet (not just this article, it’s the consensus among western publications). yes, china’s internet censorship is stifling and unjust. but in terms of privacy, the US is no better. google grants the US govt backdoor access to their users’ information. the recent attack on google was made possible by this, and it’s only going to get worse as google formally partners with the NSA to create new methods of “electronic surveillance”:

in my opinion, there is very little evidence (besides the circumstantial) to implicate the chinese government in the “attack.” china has a vast network of professional hackers, on and off the grid, and it could have been bankrolled by any of myriad corporate or political interests with a stake. whatever the source, though, this event (and how it’s been spun) have created a clear precedent for the US government to legally invade the privacy of google’s users. i don’t believe this is a net win for google or the US.

Meanwhile, google is still doing business in China censoring results to the poor information deficit ridden Chinese. Google of course respects your privacy so much that they will share your data with some No Such Agency.

For your safety’s sake, the FBI wants to have a log websites you visited and track where you are by tracking the location of your cell phone. But unlike that repressive Chinese regime, we are free, right?

That text message thing reminds of what happened to my brother who brought a phone a few years back. One month that he got an outrageous phone bill because he apparently sent hundreds of text messages that he didn’t sent it. His phone wasn’t stolen so someone has obviously hacked his sim card. He cancelled his phone plan and had to pay for an early termination fee. In any case, many people in China received these junk text messages that I’m sure that most people would like censored. Is that a bad thing, probably not.

Stop lying to it’s ppl? Well, Chinese culture and society will continue to evolve along with all the other earthly cultures into future. Some elements will survive and become part of globalization, and others will be washed away into historical garbage bin, or into museum or cyber display cases…but the ccp power base will not survive in its’ current format…And google won’t be as ‘cool’ as it is now to Chinese youths!

I Hope the Chinese Communist Party Can Continue to its Dictatorship of China for As Long As Possible.

Should a government or political party step down from power due to its mistakes or even crimes? I do not think it should, and I do not think it has happened in history. No matter what mistakes a government made, as long as it corrects its mistakes and improves itself, it’s still a good government.

The American government has made many many mistakes and crimes in its history, from the genocide of Native Americans to the enslavement of Blacks to the exploitation of immigrants to the Iraq War. Yet has the American government stepped down yet? Of course not. Some people think the Democratic and Republican parties’ constant switching of power is meaningful, but they both belong to the same elite ruling class, follows the same institutions and ideologies, to think they represent two different government or systems is too simple, too naive.

Now let’s look at the Chinese government. If we draw a graph, on the x-axis is time, and on the y-x is the number of people killed by the Chinese government, then you’ll see that this graph is a rapidly decreasing one, and decreasing much faster than the same graph for the American government. This means the Chinese government is progressing, improving. This is a good thing. Today’s China is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, this I have no complaints about. This is simply the result of historical evolution, history will evolve regardless of human will, just like mountains and rivers and continents will shift and change through millions of years. Can humans stop a mountain from forming, a river from forming, stop the formation of the Asian Continent, the formation of the Pacific Ocean? Of course we cannot.

Of course, we have a right to criticize the performance of the Chinese government. For example, when I go into a convenience store, and I was mistreated, I’ll raise a complaint to the manager. But I still acknowledge the manager’s ownership of this convenience store, I’ll not deny his ownership just because I was unhappy with the service, and I certainly will not ask him to hand over ownership of this store to me because of it. Today, I acknowledge the Chinese Communist Party’s ownership of China.

In today’s world, 100+ countries recognize the Chinese Communist Party to be the official and legal government of the People’s Republic of China, and China has embassadorial/commerce/trade/cultural/educational/political/military relations with those countries. China is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council, permanent member of World Trade Organization, permanent member of International World Bank, of International Monetary Fund, of G20, of Asian Pacific Alliance, etc. In other worlds, the world has fully embraced China and the Chinese government.

America has been an expert at anti-Communist and anti-Dicatorship activities and causes. It has the most powerful military in the world, the biggest spy agency in the world, the biggest political influence in the world, it even is able to bring down the USSR. Yet even this great anti-Communist, anti-Dicatorship superpower is now cooperating with China, is forming strategic relationship with China. I think it’s fair to say the US government has long ago gave up the goal of bringing down China like it did the USSR. It realized long time ago China is much stronger than USSR, and cannot be brought down so easily. The Taiwanese government, in the 50′s and 60′s had concrete plans to invade the Mainland and “re-take” their lost power. But it has realized a long time ago that this window has passed.

So, I think the Chinese Communist Party can rest easy, and realize that there’s no credible force today that can touch it, no group of people can challenge it. I am very happy about this of course, because I hope the Chinese Communist Party can continue to rule China and continue its dictatorship for as long as possible.

To Pugster:
“In any case, many people in China received these junk text messages that I’m sure that most people would like censored. Is that a bad thing, probably not.”
—for once you’re absolutely right. If “the people” want it censored, then so be it. Censorship only has negative connotations when it is done against your will and/or without your knowledge.

It seems to me Mr. Stimson’s piece employs the same principle as Han Han’s piece about culture. The argument against censorship isn’t based on an assessment of it as a principle or guiding philosophy; it’s that its use prevents the unfettered access to information that will one day help PRC Chinese rise up as a people.

However, the question of whether “a government or political party” should relinquish power is not one for said government or party to answer. To effectively or meaningfully ask that question, the purview of providing the answer has to meaningfully rest with the people. Such a situation does not exist in China. So it’s a meaningless question to ask, insofar as China is concerned.

Despite the Americans’ system of checks and balances and separation of powers, I absolutely agree that the nation has erred in the past. And you know what, if her people had wanted to move her country in a more radically different direction than the variations offered by the Democrats and Republicans, they certainly could have done so. That they haven’t, however, is a reflection of the peoples’ choices. That’s the problem with choice. If you let people choose, you can’t turn around and complain if they haven’t chosen as you would have.

I’m glad that you so willingly subject yourself to the wisdom of the CCP. And that is your choice. I’d be awfully interested, however, in how all the other folks in CHina felt. It’s too bad the CCP doesn’t feel that way. It would serve to remember also that the CCP has been in power for 60 years, and to compare her to geologic phenomena seems akin to an exercise with apples and oranges. Humans certainly don’t have much effect on geologic happenings, that I can agree. But PRC citizens can’t affect the CCP not because they are altogether incapable of such, but simply because the CCP won’t allow it.

I’m happy to hear that you would forgo challenging the store manager’s jurisdiction in his/her own store. The difference is that you’ve chosen to patronize that store. And if the manager’s response to your complaints prove unsatisfactory, you always have the option of taking your business elsewhere. But when you’re born in China and live in China, you haven’t necessarily exercised a choice. And even if you don’t like the “manager’s” response, you don’t have a lot of choice (well, I suppose you can emigrate, but that’s a slightly more involved undertaking than taking your business next door). I would also have surmised that China belongs to Chinese citizens, and not to any particular political party/system of governance. But if you want to assign your share to Big Brother, be my guest.

I don’t know if the CCP rests easy. But she has built herself a pretty good mousetrap in terms of silencing dissent. Whether that is something Chinese citizens will continue to tolerate, who knows. Rather than the CCP ruling China “as long as possible”, I’d like it one day to be “as long as Chinese people are ok with it”. That will truly be the day.

See hat the CCP did to China in the past. How was China situation up to the 70′s and into 80`s.

No colonial power had ever done so much damage to China, culturally, economically and in lives than the CCP!

See what the chinese people are able to achieve when the narrow cage the CCP had them imprisoned was made a little bigger.

What they could achieve if the cage was no more?

Yes, I know Richard, the CCP today today is not the same as yesterday and there are good people there for sure. The problem is not the people but the system itself, even those that could do something to improve it may be prevented by the very system to do it.

And yes, there is nothing more dangerous and prone to the most unexpected results than trying to change the order of things.

Still, call me crazy, I put my bets in an eventual bi-party system in China.
Two main currents in CCP acting in reality as to parties maybe?

Or……someting more interesting…..CCP and Kuomingtan again? Hey, it is not so crazy, and that would solve th Taiwan problem better than throwing missiles accross Taiwan straits.

This venture that Google has started out on in the end can’t help but make China and the U.S. partners rather than adversaries.

Alas, if only that is true. But things just keep getting uglier and uglier between them. News today had China dumping all its corporate, municipal, and state bonds. I don’t know if it is true, but if it is, it’s bad news.

If your personal ego ever becomes big enough, you will realize the perceived national status and powerfulness of China is less relevant to the potency of your own identity. You would consider yourself as part of ownership of that convenient store, not a disenchanted customer…Instead of only caring about the growing power, you would be more interested in fairness and justice of a society…the long term peaceful sustainable development of the planet earth, and you will become internationalis…when that moment has come, then you truly rise as an equal, no more as a victim, you will start to have soft power and gain respect.

Why is information freedom important to China? Because that’s the foundation to social justice and fairness.

This guy is a full-blood capitalist! I have communist sympathies, and Communism does work for a state – especially in its economy. The leaders just want a bit more security as far as the internet’s concerned, that’s all

Instead of only caring about the growing power, you would be more interested in fairness and justice of a society

Ok let’s talk about this then.

If your state is weak, politically, economically and militarily, internally, it’ll be too poor and the gov’t too weak and too lacking resources to implement meaningful social welfare, medicare, environmental protection, fair judicial system, etc. Case in point, if you are a citizen of Haiti during the earthquake, you’ll be more screwed than if you are a citizen of the US during a smiliar scale earthquake.

Externally, it’ll have no strength to resist unfair trade practices imposed by stronger nations, it’ll have no domestic car industry/airplane industry/computer industry/manufacturing industry to compete internationally, it’ll have no political/military deterrence to resist territorial aggression/demands by other nations, it’ll have no political muscle to resist unfair treaties imposed on it, and worst of all it’ll have no way to fight back against direct invasions.

So yes, from an “individual’s well-being and happiness” point of view, it’s definitely better to be a citizen of a (comprehensively) strong nation (aka United States, Britain, France, even Russia) rather than a weak nation (aka Haiti, Somalia, Albania). This is not about a sense of pride, just a very practical matter of interests/benefits.

Of course you can argue there are “strong” nations whose citizens are not proportionally better off, like maybe USSR. So the logic is:

A strong nation may not always lead to better livelihood for the citizens, but a weak nation definitely would lead to worse livelikhood of the citizens.

So from a probabilistic standpoint, if you want to improve the general welfare of the individual, then of course you want your nation to be strong: militarily, economically, politically.

It is not the economic, politic or military strength (although last one can come quite handy in some kind of crisis..)

It is the strength of the civil society. If you have that, the rest follows when needed, if you don’t have that, and it has to be imposed from above, you may have some strength buy on shaky foundations.

And energy and resources must be inefficiently wasted trying to make up for it, or maintaining and instable equilibrium.

Costa Rica is doing “well” because it is a semi-US state, under the protection and aid of the US. Let Costa Rica be a politically independent nation, and the situation will be different.

“It is the strength of the civil society. ”

If your nation is too poor to provide medicare and basic nutrition to children, to provide basic infrastructure like roads and airpots, to guarantee clean water and sewage and waste collection, gov’t too weak to maintain law and order, if there’s a 10-year-old civil war waged by terorrists or indepdendence forces that the central gov’t is unable to handle, then, where is the “civil society” to speak of?

Yes I agree civil society is important, but civil society is not built on sand, behind it is the strength of a state. Same thing with individuals, crimes are higher in poor areas, that is a statistical fact. Yes there are crimes done by rich people as well, and yes there are very peaceful and happy poor people. But I’m talking about the majority of situation, the most general situation.

As always, putz_ster, you’re both stupid and ubiquitous. An unfortunate combination.

On the other hand, perhaps putz_ster is on to something when he suggests that Americans aren’t quite as free as we imagine ourselves to be. For example, I’m not free to beat to death stupid people who offend me. (There are limits to the pursuit of happiness, after all.) Words like “free” and “unregulated” are ideological constructs that we apply to a set of conditions (or policies, etc.) that we favor. Nevertheless, if the Chinese internet is as free as the CCP’s various spokespersons would have us believe, why then is it necessary for me to use a VPN to read this blog and, by extension, putz_ster’s lame contributions? Could it be that a little less internet freedom would deliver us all from putz_ster? Silver lining, indeed.

Yes sorry I was thinking Puerto Rico. But my argument is still the same. Costa Rica is very much a third world country, not on the same level as US or Europe or even many Latin American countries. And it may be doing “ok for a third world country”, but that’s because it has little geopolitical pressure. For a big country like China, there’s no way you can be without geopolitical pressure, you have to be constantly try to improve and be strong, otherwise you’ll be left in the dust.

@subject
Argument not the same. Costa Rica is among best places to live in latinoamerica. Hardly a third world country in my scale. And it has a strength that goes beyond the military. And army is by the way forbidden by the constitution.

@SubjectsMustObeyTheStateYes I agree civil society is important, but civil society is not built on sand, behind it is the strength of a state.

On the other hand, it is naive and to think that states are some sort of “Messianic” entities which is necessarily altruistic. Look at Zaire under Mobutu, the Philippines under Marcos and Zimbabwe under Mugabe and many many other examples. Instead of “doing good”, the “strong” state can be predatory towards its subjects when it is sustained by clientalism, cronyism and corruption.

I fully agree with eco. Costa Rica is in my view one of the best places on earth. On par or even a little better than Spain, which is far above the US, which is millennia ahead of China

I don’t even know why I bother with these comparisons, Costa Rica and the US are like Hawaii and Detroit – I mean sure Detroit has some things that Hawaii doesn’t but who in his right mind would choose Detroit as a place to live, other than making money – and the US and China are literally like George Washington and Mao Zedong, I mean, sure George W. the First had slaves and killed a whole bunch of Englishmen (and perhaps even helped Franklin bury some Loyalists in his backyard) but next to Mao he looks so virtuous and accomplished as to seem from another species…

The people in China could be very much flattered to know that they are deemed to have great innovative power, except it is not conspicuous yet, simply because they are still not free. The Chinese people, along with their creative and innovative power, has been suppressed for over 5 or 6 thousand years, only waiting to blossom someday, who knows when. Try to imagine the power of the Sleeping Lion in the East to shake the world, only if it is no longer misguided and subdued by the mean and lousy dictatorship, which, by the way, will rise to no occasion.

@SubjectsMustObeyTheStateSo yes, from an “individual’s well-being and happiness” point of view, it’s definitely better to be a citizen of a (comprehensively) strong nation (aka United States, Britain, France, even Russia) rather than a weak nation (aka Haiti, Somalia, Albania). This is not about a sense of pride, just a very practical matter of interests/benefits.

From a developmental view, it seems that you have a very ill-defined meaning of “strong” and “weak” states. From a Weberian perspective, a “strong” state means that there is presence of a well-defined, efficient bureaucracy based on an elaborate hierarchy, rule of law, the state having the monopoly of legitimate violence and centralization of authority. It also means the absence of arbitrary, irrational decision-making ( eg. based on the whims of one single leader).

Hence, with this concept of what constitutes a strong state, if one is in a distant part of say Russia where the mafia is the de facto authority and that local officials actually expropriated part of the tax collections before delivering it to the central government, you can actually consider Russia as having a “weak” rather than a “strong” state. The same can be said if you are in a distant rural county in Western China.

Revolutionary leader… check
Fought against colonial powers… check
Win military victories. .. check
Did long march and return to victory… check
Became great chairman… check
Subjected himself to the will of the people.. check
Didn’t attempt a big jump forward… check
Didn’t attempt a cultural revolution to cling to power… check
He is properly buried… check.

Yep. Looks pretty good to me. Any guesses about % right and wrong for him?

Hence, with this concept of what constitutes a strong state, if one is in a distant part of say Russia where the mafia is the de facto authority and that local officials actually expropriated part of the tax collections before delivering it to the central government, you can actually consider Russia as having a “weak” rather than a “strong” state. The same can be said if you are in a distant rural county in Western China.

That’s true. In many rural parts of China, many national laws are regularly broken simply because there is not enough deep penetration of local law enforcement, and many local corrupt police officers collude with mafia with no consequence. So the CCP actually has less ability to 100% thoroughly enforce laws through all levels. In the US, there’s actually a much stronger central authority (aka the federal gov’t), and even in the most rural areas of Texas or West Virginia or Alaska, local and state troopers and FBI offices and courts enforce the same set of federal laws as everywhere else. That’s why building a modern legal system is very important, more so than “nation-wide elections”.

The Chinese people, along with their creative and innovative power, has been suppressed for over 5 or 6 thousand years

But suppressed by whom? Aliens? Foreigners? Well I guess in the Yuan and Qing dynasty you can blame it on the foreigners. But throughout most of Chinese history all the “brutal dictators” were Chinese themselves. In fact, 99% of CCP members are Chinese, with the same “underlying cultural greatness and the genius” that Bill Stimson was talking about. My mother is a CCP member, my uncle also is, and 50% of my relatives and their friends are CCP members at various levels, some with pretty important local/provincial level administrative powers. But they are not somehow a different group of people than the non-CCP Chinese. So how do you separate the two? Who are the “bad CCP gov’t” and who are the “great Chinese people”? Is Hujintao not a member of the “great Chinese people” is Wen Jiaboa not a member of the “great Chinese people”. When these 2 men were children, students, young adults, they all were just like any other Chinese person, it’s not even like they came from privilegedly families and lived differently than the regular folks.

So, unless you can say that the CCP is a foreign entity, then you have to face the fact that the CCP is just a part of the Chinese people, and even the CCP’s emergence is a result of the mentality and culture and history of the Chinese people. The CCP is a product of the Chinese people. If you succeed in eliminating the CCP but fail to address the underlying issue, then another version of the CCP will just take its place. If that’s the result, why bother?

What if the Chinese government stopped lying to its people and admitted inconvenient truths? What if some in power were swept away as a result and others arose to take their place?

Depends on who they were replaced with.

Look at Taiwan. An opposition party, free elections, an uncensored Internet – still the environment is one every Chinese would recognize and feel at home in.

Taiwan was not “free” until 2000, and even then CSB scammed one victory (and didn’t really deserve the other), essentially. “Democracy” in Taiwan has a long way to go. That said, Taiwan is exceedingly Japanized/Westernized, has no sense of identity (or a fractured one). One reason why so few people have any sympathy for Taiwan is because of how spineless and confused Taiwanese identity is.

These necessary modern developments are not a threat to China or its culture. The only ones they might threaten are those who grab for themselves a bit too much of what belongs to all. To preserve their prerogative to do this, and pass this on to their children, though it be at the expense of their culture, their nation, their people, and even their Communist ideology – this tiny percentage of the population in the People’s Republic strives at all cost to cover up what it is doing. It’s dishonest to its own people. It does everything in its power to prevent embarrassing truths from reaching them from foreign sources.

Because we all know democracy is excellent for developing nations. Here is a list of all of the historical precedents:

Similarly, being democratic does not mean owning up to your mistakes. Look at Japan’s LDP. Look at how America hides and whitewashes the casualties in the Iraq War.

This latest bundle of untruths – that the Chinese Internet is open, the United States uses the Internet to dominate the world, and Western insistence on an uncensored Internet amounts to “information imperialism”

They could have used better wording, but essentially forcing your country open to an onslaught of biased, racist American media is just that. Some form of imperialism. America likes to use lofty terms like “free speech” and “globalization” to defend its neo-imperialism. Look at what Hollyweird did to Hong Kong Cinema.

The Chinese government’s cyber attack on Google is telling. A system that is closed, controlled, and dominated by a small minority – which is not the most creative or innovative segment of the society – can only progress by stealing or grabbing what does not belong to it.

The Indian government is democratic, yet India can’t innovate. Democracy =/= innovation.

China’s whole foreign policy seems to boil down to grabbing Taiwan and preventing any discussion of how it grabbed Tibet.

America’s whole foreign policy seems to boil down to grabbing the Middle East and preventing any discussion of how it grabbed Hawaii.

Japan’s whole foreign policy seems to boil down to grabbing Dokdo, Senkaku, Kuril and preventing any discussion of how it grabbed the Ryukyus.

England’s whole foreign policy seems to boil down to grabbing the Falkland Islands and preventing any discussion of how it grabbed Northern Ireland.

Terrible writing, pandering to simple minded idiots who do not know history.

It unconscionably befriends whatever unsavory regime it needs to in order to grab resources.

Yet we have “delectable polities” like Saudi Arabia and Haiti, as well as Taiwan under the white terror, on the other side.

It’s even intent on grabbing tiny little islands way out at sea from neighboring countries all around. China is already big enough.

So are America, Canada and Russia- but we don’t see Stimson asking these “nations” to relinquish their annexed Native territory now do we? One rule for whites, one rule for non-whites.

What it has of most value is already inside it – it’s people and their superior creative potential. It needs to grab nothing. It needs instead to release its people’s vast potential so that it can stop being wasted; and the world needs this too of China.

Yes because 8-11% growth is not enough. 15% year on year growth in patent applications is not enough. Doubling wind energy capacity is not enough. For China needs 20% growth, 30% increase in patents and it needs to triple renewable energy production every quarter.

It’s that simple. Compare this to Chinese companies that put poison in toys and fake protein in baby formulas.

China is the only nation with faulty products. I’m sure those Toyota cars that killed 4 people were a Chinese conspiracy. Toyota is a world-class company that no American automaker can ever compare to- yet of course out of the millions of cars they have produced, there will be those with defects. I guess he means to imply that the “evil Chinese” are “poisoning our children”.

based on what has been grabbed, stolen, or diverted from the West

What a joke. The West does all the grabbing, stealing and diverting in this world.

Subjects, I tend to agree with you that “the CCP is just a part of the Chinese people, and even the CCP’s emergence is a result of the mentality and culture and history of the Chinese people. The CCP is a product of the Chinese people.”

However, this doesn’t mean you cannot say, “I love the Chinese people but I don’t love the CCP.” One may be an outgrowth of the other, just as America’s government (and perhaps every other country’s) grew out of and reflects its people and culture. I know many, many Chinese people who will tell you emphatically that they dislike their government. Does that mean they hate Chinese people? Absolutely not. (And for the record, I know even more Chinese people who will tell you they admire their government, or at least feel it’s doing the best that it can.)

Agree with you about the need for rule of law that is enforceable. That is the missing link in China right now. it’s improving, but until there are checks and balances, including a system for citizens to challenge their government and air their grievances, you will keep hearing complaints that the CCP is repressive. And yes, as you say, those repressive tendencies may be the manifestation of many centuries of repressive rule. But it’s now the 21st century; perhaps it’s time to shed some of the less appealing relics of the past like censorship and denial of individual rights. (And yes, I know, America would be well served to shed some of its own ugly habits.)

Japan has a pretty outstanding track record when it comes to the export of high-quality products. There have been some exceptions like the Toyota scandal and Bridgestone tires some years ago. And the US had the Fords that tipped over and many other products that had to be recalled. But China leads when it comes to consistently substandard and often dangerous products, from tainted milk, tainted infant formula, bad drywall, toys with high lead content, products that simply fall apart, etc. No other country comes close in terms of poor quality control, and every foreign company that has goods manufactured in China for export knows exactly what i mean.. There’s a reason all those CCP bigwigs drive Audis and Pajeros.

But here we go with Merp again, finding an example in another country that in his eyes takes China off the hook. Reflexive. The dancing chicken at the circus.

Subject
“The CCP is a product of the Chinese people”
Is it the product of the people? Or just a product of those that managed to grab power at an opportune moment and managed to hold on to it?
You could say the last dynasty was a product of the people – didn’t help it, though, did it?

Merp – I know you’re so smart
“The Indian government is democratic, yet India can’t innovate. Democracy =/= innovation”
One Chinese innovation in the last, oooh, let’s make it easy, century.

One Chinese innovation in the last, oooh, let’s make it easy, century.

Give me one Haitian or Indian innovation in the last, oooh, let’s make it easy, century. [insert assumptions, brainwashing, noise, ignorance] Therefore democracy is a failure!

You can’t innovate when Westerners are trying to destroy your nation, culture and people in every waking moment. China managed to stay intact and independent- which automatically puts them above almost all other nations in terms of ingenuity.

Japan has a pretty outstanding track record when it comes to the export of high-quality products.

Aren’t you a writer? I thought you did more reading. It was exceedingly clear that I used Japan as an example of how pretty much any nation can produce dangerous exports. The situation in China is not entirely the CCP’s fault. Nearly all developing nations need to work on product safety.

But of course only China gets the blame, while Mexican and Indian food products are even less passable according to the FDA.

There are charts published by food safety administrations of several countries that have countries ranked by product failure rates. You could look at those or simply spew more anti-Chinese rhetoric like Fox News wants you to.

Merp, face the music: China is now exporting some of the best-made products in the world, but it is still the king when it comes to products that are manufactured below standards. They are still the king when it comes to cutting corners that then result in catastrophic outcomes and even death. The government knows this and is deeply concerned about it, as it should be. I never said this was due to the CCP – to the contrary. It is due to lack of regulation and the all too easy ability to bribe the inspectors. It’s also due to rampant greed, as by cutting corners you can add more fat to the margins. And yes, Americans on Wall Street are greedy too and distributed toxic substances known as Collateralized Debt Obligations. but we’re talking about bad/unsafe consumer products; CDOs are in a different category of greed.

Is it the product of the people? Or just a product of those that managed to grab power at an opportune moment and managed to hold on to it?
You could say the last dynasty was a product of the people – didn’t help it, though, did it?

But those who managed to grab power are not foreigners, they were Chinese just like everyone else. So if Mao failed in his revolution, another person like him would’ve taken his place and mostly has a different version of the same kind of dictatorship in place today.

However, this doesn’t mean you cannot say, “I love the Chinese people but I don’t love the CCP.”

But I don’t think this statement is not so easy to make. It’s not like there’s “The CCP” and the “Chinese people” like they are two separate groups and one is oppressing the other. The more accurate picture is the CCP is amongst the Chinese people, with no clear distinction and boundaries. Can you look at a Chinese person and easily identify him/her as belonging to the evil CCP or the innocent Chinese people?

So when you say I love the Chinese people, I assume you mean you love the cultures, traditions, food, literature, civilization, etc of the China. Well then, Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, and any regular CCP gov’t official may very well be an inheritor and embodiment of those things? You may find in them great examples of “Chinese people”, because all of those men are, in fact, Chinese people, 100% pure Chinese people.

Dude, I say all the time that I love America and I don’t love its government. Stop making silly arguments. Governments are concentrations of power and are inherently corrupt, ergo the need for checks and balances and a free press. I love China. I love the Chinese friends I’ve made and the places I’ve visited. I love China’s energy and enthusiasm and irrepressibility. I don’t love the censorship, the bureaucracy, the corruption, the inequities and the one-party dictatorship. If I knew Hu and Wen I might adore them, too, as I adore so many others in China. I’d still say, I love China, but I don’t love the Chinese government. And I often say the same about America.

@SubjectsMustObeyTheStateIt’s not like there’s “The CCP” and the “Chinese people” like they are two separate groups and one is oppressing the other. The more accurate picture is the CCP is amongst the Chinese people, with no clear distinction and boundaries.

A country shouldn’t belong to a single party. No individuals or groups should have an unbroken monopoly over government. That’s what the CCP is doing now: Monopolizing Chinese politics under one party. The common Chinese folks didn’t or more accurately wasn’t given the right to renew or revoke the CCP’s mandate since 1949. In the eyes of the CCP, anyone who criticizes them must be some malicious unpatriotic individuals backed by foreign elements. Tell us about it. There is no such thing as “loyal opposition” in the eyes of the CCP. Do CCP’s party interests always coincide with the Chinese nation’s interests? I leave you to think about it.

China managed to stay intact and independent- which automatically puts them above almost all other nations in terms of ingenuity.

Despite Mao’s Cultural Revolution destroying millions of Chinese lives, pushing the nation’s progress back for decades, inflicting enormous damage on Chinese cultural heritage and plunging the nation into almost a civil war with different factions of Red Guards fighting each other until the PLA had to brought in, China managed to stay intact and independent.

To Merp:
why is it that you (and many folks like you) often feel the need to make comparisons? What, China’s not democratic enough? Look at Taiwan. What, China sweeps her mistakes under the rug? Look at the US. WHat, China may not innovate enough? Look at India. And the band plays on. However, this isn’t, needn’t, and shouldn’t be simply the lowest common denominator of “see, so and so did it, therefore it’s no biggie that China does too”. That sort of argument is playground level, and shouldn’t have much of a role among individuals who’ve graduated from that phase of their lives. We’re talking about China, not China compared to this/that/the other. If you want to rail against the US, you should start something called “steak and eggs”. If against the Brits, maybe “bangers and mash”. For Canada, maybe “Tim Horton’s”. But when I feel that Chinese people deserve less censorship, it’s not because of the state of censorship in any other nation. When I feel that Chinese people deserve more rights, it’s not because of the state of rights and freedoms elsewhere. However, I did enjoy you referring to Taiwan as though it were another country. That’s refreshing for someone with your POV.

However, if your life cannot go on without comparisons, then at least make the comparisons relevant. Let’s compare China with another country, in every regard and category of interest. That’s at least more legitimate than comparing each of China’s perceived flaws individually with the isolated flaws of other nations.

To SMOTS:
“It’s not like there’s “The CCP” and the “Chinese people” like they are two separate groups and one is oppressing the other.”
—I would certainly agree that the CHinese people aren’t oppressing the CCP.

“The more accurate picture is the CCP is amongst the Chinese people, with no clear distinction and boundaries.”
— in most places, there are political parties, the political system, and the people said system governs. One certainly needn’t be a member of any political party to feel a part of the underlying system. But in China, it’s different, because the party and the system are one and the same. And you’re either a CCP member or you’re not. So I think there is a pretty clear demarcation. Of course, Hu Jintao is a person too…he just happens to have 2 hats…PRC citizen, and supreme leader.

A country shouldn’t belong to a single party. No individuals or groups should have an unbroken monopoly over government. That’s what the CCP is doing now: Monopolizing Chinese politics under one party. The common Chinese folks didn’t or more accurately wasn’t given the right to renew or revoke the CCP’s mandate since 1949. In the eyes of the CCP, anyone who criticizes them must be some malicious unpatriotic individuals backed by foreign elements. Tell us about it. There is no such thing as “loyal opposition” in the eyes of the CCP. Do CCP’s party interests always coincide with the Chinese nation’s interests? I leave you to think about it.

Again, you use “common Chinese folk”, who are they? How do you distinguish between a common Chinese folk and non-common Chinese folk? If you meet my mom, I’m confident you’ll find in her all the characteristics of a common Chinese folk, traditional, family-oriented, inventive, entrepreneurial, hospitable, and an excellent cook. Yet she is also a member of the CCP, you can even say she indirectly helps enforce the CCP’s oppressive policies against the “common Chinese folk”. If you meet my uncle, you’ll find him the most polite and decent and suave person on earth, if you go have dinner at his house, you’ll love it! Yet he is very much a CCP member, and works for a Chinese weapons manufacturer, and was probably personally involved in many arms deals to Iran and other “rogue nations”.

So, again, do you consider the above two part of the innocent common Chinese people, or part of the problem? CCP has 60 million members, that’s almost three times the population of Canada! Surely you are not going to label all of those people bad guys. Then, who are the bad guys? Who are doing the monopolizing of power? Hu Jintao? Wen Jiabao? So if we get rid of these 2 men and their associates, CCP is gone?

I hereby declare this one of the silliest conversations this blog has seen, and that says a lot. Based on Subject’s logic, no government is bad because they’re run by ordinary folks. After all, they’re citizens of the country like everyone else. And if you like those ordinary folks, you gotta love the government!

Wrong. Power corrupts and all too often those invested with it do awful things to the disenfranchised. Most of the people in the CCP are fine, likable people. I’ve met many of them myself and they’re first-rate. Same with American politicians I’ve met. Good as gold. And yet my government does some pretty dreadful things, as does the CCP. That’s because, with the temptation of vast wealth and unchecked power in front of them, some of those in power abuse it. History is loaded with such examples. It is not limited to one or two men like Wen or Hu (who I do not see as corrupt, but as repressive). Anyone who takes the reins of power is potentially corrupt. That’s why you need processes to keep those with power in check, such as a free press.

But this is a diversion from the topic of Google, China and Taiwan, and I think we’ve exhausted this argument. We know where you stand, Subject. Leave it at that.

Then why persecute Chinese dissidents who just happen to disagree with how the political system works in China now?

CCP has 60 million members, that’s almost three times the population of Canada

The reality is that only real power lies in the 9 men in the standing committee of the Politburo who run the party-state from Zhongnanhai.

And how about the 1.3billion – 60 million Chinese who are not members of the CCP? Is the party accountable to them? Even members of the CCP do not “elect” their party leaders. It is Marxist-Leninist party with no substantial party democracy. Can your mom or uncle vote Hu Jintao out of power in open and fair party elections? Yes? No?

Just because a proportion of the population are CCP members doesn’t hide or change the fact that the political system lacked accountability to the people. Other than doing away with the hereditary system of past dynasties, the CCP is just as autocratic and anachronistic as every dynasty of ancient China.

That’s why you need processes to keep those with power in check, such as a free press.

Yes agreed. But that’s very different from overthrowing CCP. If you overthrow the CCP without addressing the underlying issue, another dictatorship will just take its place. If that’s the result, why bother?

Other than doing away with the hereditary system of past dynasties, the CCP is just as autocratic and anachronistic as every dynasty of ancient China.

Bingo. So what makes you think getting rid of CCP will solve the problem? What if what replaces CCP is even more repressive and brutal?

Look at FLG, their operations right now are almost exactly how CCP operated back in the days. Propaganda, misdirection, coercion, vicious personal attacks, etc. If you read some of the Nine Commentaries on the CCP written by FLG, you’ll think you are reading a piece from the CCP’s Dept of Propaganda if you only look at the rhetoric and methods of argumentation.

FLG sets up booths and protests everyday in Flushing, NY. If you approach them and try to debate them, their first response would be :”You are a paid CCP agent! You have no conscience!”. If you continue, they’ll take a picture of your face and the next day on their Epoch Times there’ll be a picture of you with a caption like “CCP-hired thug try to disrupt peaceful protest”.

FLG is like a mini-CCP, they inherited all the propaganda methods and the thuggery as well.

Not sure how we got onto the topic of overthrowing the CCP. I’ve never suggested such a thing and don’t recommend it, at least not at the moment. There is overthrow and there is reform. No sense getting a new set of rulers until the mechanisms are in place to control them, like a Supreme Court. (And I know that my country’s own Supreme Court has made some boneheaded decision lately, but throughout America’s history they’ve kept the other branches of power in line pretty well.)

And now the FLG enters the conversation. Tell me, Subjects, are you trying to see how much of a rise you can get from other readers? An honest question. I’ve seen patterns like this before. Your handle tells me that something’s not quite right, like the commenter from a few months ago whose handle was IDontLiketheUSA.

Gosh, all this talk of what nice people family members are (anecdotes, mind). I’ll bet a few Germans had a nice Uncle Hans…played with the children, loved animals, wouldn’t hurt a fly….member of the Nazi Party and did some research in poisons….

Despite Mao’s Cultural Revolution destroying millions of Chinese lives, pushing the nation’s progress back for decades, inflicting enormous damage on Chinese cultural heritage and plunging the nation into almost a civil war with different factions of Red Guards fighting each other until the PLA had to brought in, China managed to stay intact and independent.

No one actually knows what really happened then. What we do know is that China would be much worse off if it were Westernized. It would probably be better off under the KMT- but they lost, no thanks to Russia and America.

No one knows what happened then? What universe are you living in? Read A Single Tear, The Man Who Stayed Behind, Apologies Forthcoming. And countless other eyewitness books on the CR. Hell if you argue that “no one knows what happened then,” we can apply that to Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other American issues you rant about. But it’s dishonest. We have plenty of data about the CR and Iraq and Afghanistan; we don’t know everything and maybe we never will, but we certainly know enough to get the general picture, and to know that many innocent people died in these events.

And Merp, old sport – none of those hysterical comments with the personal stuff are coming through. Why do you bother writing them? You should know by now.

Oddly enough, my father in law knows what happened to him during the Cultural Revolution. and my wife’s grandfather was worried enough about what would happen to him were he caught with his dead wife’s cosmetic containers, dishes and books on the classics (most of the crockery he smashed, some he painted to erase the pictures on them. The books he burnt).
One can’t say how China would have been had it “westernised” (whatever that means) as it didn’t happen and none of us are privy to the alternate universe where it did. To say it would be much worse of is merely idle speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up. Just because one hates the west (while being deeply addicted to its lifestyle and privileges) does not make one the best of judges…

Wife once told me of her surprise when Taiwanese films started being shown in China. You see, previously she’d been told how oppressed and downtrodden the Taiwanese were, information completely at odds with what she was seeing on the screen…

No, “we” don’t. It’s simply not possible to know what happened in all areas of China at the time. There is a general idea, but it’s impossible to count so many bodies when a nation is shut off. We don’t know how many people have died in North Korea either.

We DO know how many people died in Iraq- over a million- because of scientifically proven methods of determining excess death rates.

No such scrutiny was given to China under Mao, and depending on the metric it could be 10 million or 100 million dead.

Merp, from what I’ve read China was quite good at keeping tabs on its citizens under Mao, keeping records of who could travel where, keeping track of everyone’s hukou, etc. The estimates of those who died in the Great Leap Forward, for example, come from government records. And there are millions upon million of living witnesses to the Cultural Revolution. It’s not like we’re talking about ancient times when there were no records at all.

To SP #55:
“And how about the 1.3billion – 60 million Chinese who are not members of the CCP? Is the party accountable to them?”
—great questions. I hope someone can provide an answer.

To SMOTS #56:
“If you overthrow the CCP without addressing the underlying issue, another dictatorship will just take its place. If that’s the result, why bother?”
—if “another dictatorship” is the only conceivable result of the removal of the CCP from power, then you’ve asked a good question. But why do you think that would be the only conceivable result?

“What if what replaces CCP is even more repressive and brutal?”
—with choice comes consequences. So hopefully when Chinese people are allowed to choose, they exercise such right of choice wisely. But it seems awfully paternalistic to say “they can’t be given the choice because they might choose poorly, so we’ll continue to decide for them as it is for their own good”.

To SMOTS #56:
“If you overthrow the CCP without addressing the underlying issue, another dictatorship will just take its place. If that’s the result, why bother?”
—if “another dictatorship” is the only conceivable result of the removal of the CCP from power, then you’ve asked a good question. But why do you think that would be the only conceivable result?

It’s not the only conceivable result of course, but it is a possible result. So then it becomes a question: if I operate on this cancer, the operation will be high risk, and there’s 40%-50% chance you can end up in a much worse state than you are in now. If I don’t operate, and instead apply more conservative treatments, there’s a 60% chance you’ll get better in the long run, but you may also never get better, and this window is passing, so you have to decide now. This does not seem to me a clear-cut decision to make. Of course I don’t pretend to speak on behalf o the Chinese people.

But it seems awfully paternalistic to say “they can’t be given the choice because they might choose poorly, so we’ll continue to decide for them as it is for their own good”.

I don’t say they cannot be given the choice. Can’t you say that the people chose CCP in 1949 over the KMT (not through official elections of course, but it’s undeniable that the people back then overwhelmingly supported Mao’s CCP than Chiang’s KMT, wisely or unwisely)?

Do you blame the Chinese people back then for making a wrong choice? If you say “they didn’t choose, the CCP forced themselves onto the people by grabbing power, etc”. Then if the CCP gets destabilized and 10+ different political/military groups start jostling again in China, and 10 years of more civil war and destruction later, finally another group, similar to the CCP, emerged and succesfully grabbed power and forced themselves onto the people and started a new reign of terror and suppression over China? If it happened the last time, why won’t it happen again? The only argument for it being unlikely to happen again is if somehow the Chinese people became more enlightened during the past 60 years, but how could they be if they were under constant propaganda and suppression by the CCP?

On a slightly unrelated note, in the early to late 80′s, especially in light of the fall of communist countries throughout Eastern European, many Western intellectuals and liberals had this unshakable belief that once the oppressed people of China get more exposure to Western media, society, culture, people, they’d for sure “see the light” and compare it with their own gov’t, and that’ll spell the end of the Chinese Communist Party.

Today, 21 years later, Mainlanders today about CNN, BBC, can watch Taiwanese programs on CCTV, go on vacation in New York and Europe, work and interact with multinational corporations, meet and interact with foreigners from Western Democracies, start business ventures with Western companies. All those things were supposed to spell the end of the old, rickety, rigid, conservative, uninventive, dying CPP. Yet we all see the results today, the CCP is more vibrant and enjoys more support than ever, it even got the United States by its balls through financial crisis.

What happened? How come all those Chinese people who came to study the US, who saw how great the Western colleges are, how free the Western media is, how technologically advanced and materially abundant the Western society is, how enlightened and modern the Western way of thinking is, who come all those things did not make them compare it with their own country and realize how shitty their government is? How come, instead, after spending time in the US, most of them developed more nuanced views of the world and stopped worshiping the West, as they did before they left China? How come, after the Chinese people had gotten more exposure to the West, their support of their own shitty gov’t back home increased?!

This is the ultimate question that baffles many China watchers and Chinese pro-Democracy liberal activists today. In their circles, they are asking, or re-asking, the question, “Who Lost China”? How come the old VOA, CNN, preachings about freedom and democracy failed to galvanize the Chinese youths against their gov’t as they did in 1989?

Someone above mentioned how Taiwanese media was blocked in China and how once it was lifted Chinese people were “shocked” to see how “great” Taiwan was. Not sure how he got that story. But today, Taiwanese pop singers, actors, TV personalities are leaving Taiwan and coming to the Mainland in DRONES signing up more lucrative deals and targeting a bigger market, Mainlanders watch Taiwanese TV programs all the time on CCTV. Last year, the Mainland was the largest origin of tourists to Taiwan.

Today, what’s the typical Mainlander’s reaction after seeing Taipei? Is it “Wow! All these years I was fooled by my gov’t and thought Taiepei was a poor place. Look at how great Taipei is! I was totally brainwashed!”. Nah. The more common reaction is, “Meh! I thought Taipei is some kind of highly wealthy and rich city, from the looks of it, it’s about 10 years behind a typical medium sized city in China.” Must be a painful disappointment to many Taiwanese to hear this.

Subjects – knowing your government would kill you if you decide to bring about change is also rather persuasive…

So you are saying the support for the gov’t in China by the citizens are out of coercion and fear? Even those living overseas? If that’s the case, then surely the coercion and fear would be much greater 20, 30 years ago, back then you could be executed just for having too big of a house. Surely you don’t mean to say the fear of execution today is greater than during Mao’s time.

Your 50c is on it’s way

Ad hominem? Thought that was the favorite accusion you guys make against fenqings. Everytime a fenqing disagrees with someone, he calls them an agent of CIA, and you automatically would win the argument by saying “fenqings, all you guys know is ad hominen attacks”. So does it mean I automatically win this round ?

Out of curiosity, I went to read Mr. Stimson’s website and found he is an American married to a Taiwanese woman and has been living there for a few years. I doubt he has ever been in mainland China and I don’t think he knows Chinese history that much at all (or does he care?). I don’t believe any Chinese who has lived in the United States for 30, 40 years would know enough to criticize US the way he criticize China. Unfortunately there are just too many people like Mr. Stimson out there pretending they know a lot about China and Taiwan… very biased, very emotional, very self serving, very shallow indeed. He even talked about Tibet. How much does he know about it?

Look at Taiwan, An opposition party, free elections, an uncensored Internet — still the environment is one every Chinese would recognize and feel at home in. “every Chinese???” really? That’s very arrogant. Not sure why I don’t feel that way.

The two parties in Taiwan are fighting for power all the time (I mean every second), and not much anything else. Most of the people are not educated enough to know what ‘democracy’ is about, despite (low quality) colleges/universities everywhere on the island. They are bombarded by all kinds of propaganda every day. They are being manipulated by the small group of elites using all kinds of tricks in every election. Buying votes are still rampant, believe it or not. One old woman, lives not far from my mother, collects empty plastic bottles and used cardboard boxes for a living. She was paid some spending money, a free box lunch, and a bus seat all the way from southern Taiwan to Taipei, whenever DPP (the ‘opposition’ party) needs head counts to do street protesting. She loves the free trip to the big city, but she has no idea what she was doing. She does not know how to read, by the way. Does Mr. Stimson know any of these, despite being in Taiwan for a couple of years? The way he praises Taiwan (and trashing China) is disgusting at best. And, there are tons of Mr. Stimson out there. Their motives are very questionable. I like reading their “amusing” postings, but seldom comment due to lacking of the language skill. (English is my third language, Mandarin second)

On a slightly unrelated note, in the early to late 80’s, especially in light of the fall of communist countries throughout Eastern European, many Western intellectuals and liberals had this unshakable belief that once the oppressed people of China get more exposure to Western media, society, culture, people, they’d for sure “see the light” and compare it with their own gov’t, and that’ll spell the end of the Chinese Communist Party.

That is obviously not going to happen. I think many people would agree with you that overthrowing the CCP would be a disaster and would probably not lead to any improvement for China (personally that is my view of the 1949 revolution – even though the KMT were just as ruthless and authoritarian as the CCP, the revolution was not actually a step forward).
But the problems with the CCP that we all criticize are real. Its members abuse their power. It can’t enforce its own laws against itself so injustices occur, but it tries to suppress information about them.
I don’t think that “Subjects must obey the state” is enough of an answer to this situation. Didn’t the Chinese people support the 1949 revolution because they believed that if it succeeded, they would be citizens rather than subjects? The CCP needs to evolve and improve, but it can’t if it won’t allow itself to be held to account.

“The two parties in Taiwan are fighting for power all the time (I mean every second), and not much anything else”
Yep – pretty much describes all multiparty democracies Does make us, the voters, seem like a minor distraction, eh?
But…and this I think you like…we get to chose which ones to run our affairs and if they screw up, we can change them. It’s also good to have one party pointing out the failings of the ruling party. Even better to have the ruling party’s failings pointed out without the threat of prison, death, war, revolution….

People will write about China and express their opinions. You just have to accept these opinions for what they are – opinions. Here you can read what they say and nowadays you can even write back to correct them or give them your opinions. Even in the western media! Check it out – nearly all western media sources have comments sections. Any op-ed or news article about China is sure to have the most interesting comments

But…and this I think you like…we get to chose which ones to run our affairs and if they screw up, we can change them. It’s also good to have one party pointing out the failings of the ruling party. Even better to have the ruling party’s failings pointed out without the threat of prison, death, war, revolution….

Except you omitted the fact that often you can only choose very a very limited set of candidates who emerged as a result of money and power connections instead of actual competence. And the two ruling parties do not defer much in actual policy, and instead are all part of the establishment serving moneyed interests and lobbyists, and any real third parties are unable to make any impact on elections because of the rigid system set up to protect the prosperity of existing two parties and the special interests they represent.

So yes, every 2 and 4 years, you have elections, TV debates, flashy campaign ads, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and voters get to pick from 4-5 men/women who are thoroughly “approved” by the establishment and who will not do anything to rock the boat (Obama very much included).

You see, after I add in all these details, the picture is much less appealing.

In the old high school politics textbook in China, there’s a line that described the American political machinery as “a game for the rich and powerful”. That line was the bunt of many jokes by us young brats back in the days, as the typical propaganda of a dictatorial regime trying to convince its people how terrible democracy was.

Today, after decades of experiencing both China and the US, after spending time watching both CCTV and CNN, after knowing what real politics and society is like, I think democracy, in principle, is a good thing indeed, but not the fairy tale version as sold by many “democracy activists”, but only as a somber and carefully-studied and gradually implemented system taking into account the social and historical and economical and cultural conditions of a country.

Today, I re-read that old propaganda textbook, and I realize, you know what, it’s propaganda alright, but it’s not all bullshit. I was too young and naive to dismiss it back in the days.

ALL politics is for the rich and powerful. It’s all to do with power. Multi-party democracies are only marginally better in that hoi polloi have a tiny role to play at times. Coupled with a free and open press, changes can be made.
The election processes we see are merely marketing exercises. Obama wasn’t elected on policies but on a slicker marketing campaign. But that’s the US. Other democracies run different methods to elect their leaders.
Now, say you want to change the CCP – how does one go about doing that?

Exactly….it’s like a monarchy (Tongan flavour, say. Constitutional monarchies are different). You can’t vote them out – they are there until moved out….and that invariably means some fighting (velvet revolutions aside).

Mate, we are generally educated here (I hope). To level a somewhat infantile assertion that democracy is good, full stop, is stupid – that argument is so flawed it’s barely worth the wasted breath. Even Obama has rich political ancestors, as do many in the UK and Europe.
However, to write off the people voting is also a bit fraught – how else did the BNP get some European seats?

ALL politics is for the rich and powerful. It’s all to do with power. Multi-party democracies are only marginally better in that hoi polloi have a tiny role to play at times. Coupled with a free and open press, changes can be made.
The election processes we see are merely marketing exercises. Obama wasn’t elected on policies but on a slicker marketing campaign. But that’s the US. Other democracies run different methods to elect their leaders.
Now, say you want to change the CCP – how does one go about doing that?

Yes I agree that ultimately, in the final analysis, democracy is good for China, and China needs to move in that direction (Even Wen Jiabao in an interview on CNN recently said that in 50 years, he believes China will be a more democratic and open society). And even CCP officially recognizes that, just as China lags behind the West in material civilization, it also lags behind in political civilization. So China needs to build and construct both on both fronts, material and political, and CCP itself does not deny it needs work to improve China’s political process, transparency, and yes, even human rights. If you go through any official CCP documents, official speeches by various bureacrats, you’ll find ample references to efforts in building a more democratic society and improving transparency and accountability in gov’t. So in that sense, no need to worry, CCP very much agrees with us on all those things.

Except you omitted the fact that often you can only choose very a very limited set of candidates who emerged as a result of money and power connections instead of actual competence. And the two ruling parties do not defer much in actual policy, and instead are all part of the establishment serving moneyed interests and lobbyists, and any real third parties are unable to make any impact on elections because of the rigid system set up to protect the prosperity of existing two parties and the special interests they represent.

So yes, every 2 and 4 years, you have elections, TV debates, flashy campaign ads, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and voters get to pick from 4-5 men/women who are thoroughly “approved” by the establishment and who will not do anything to rock the boat (Obama very much included).

And your point? Politics will always be politics. It will always be dirty, Machiavellian and about power. No one claims that democracy will “clean” up politics. However, in most liberal democracies, it does mean that: 1) I have a say in terms of a vote (of course i may not get what i vote for but who says it won’t matter until the outcome of the polls were announced? Many politicians won their offices with only razor-thin margins in democracies); 2) I am free to criticize politicians without fear of violent reprisals; 3) I am free to stand for office by joining any party or even as an independent; 4) I can have the avenue of judicial review (and yes laws made by politicians can be declared unconstitutional if any citizen went to the courts for judicial review and win the case and it happens); 5) I can form associations freely to rally people to my cause; 6) There is an academic freedom, which is highly uphold in democracies and important for progress.

Like any systems, democracy will have its flaws but despite all its faults, it gives the individual most space and dignity compared to any other systems.

Yes, feel free to criticize liberal democracy. The fact that you can criticize and slam elected politicians is a strength of liberal democracy in itself. Try criticizing the Chinese Communist Party when you are in China as passionately as like you have criticized democratic politics here. I don’t think we have any doubts about your fate if you do that. Oh, just to caution you that if they arrest you, it would be under some vague labels like “being a counterrevolutionary” and your trial, which may give you sentence of 10 years, may only be a summary one that could be as quick as 15 -20 min in one of the so-called “Supreme People’s Court” where your trial judge is a member of the very same political party which you have been charged for criticizing.

“If you go through any official CCP documents, official speeches by various bureacrats, you’ll find ample references to efforts in building a more democratic society and improving transparency and accountability in gov’t”
This, I take it, is the same government that said China’s internet was open? The same that arrested the young lad in the link I have provided for joining another party (and outlawed said party), that killed students in Tiananmen, that has imprisoned various people for views contrary to theirs, that state “If a group is designed to negate the leadership of the Communist Party, then it will not be allowed to exist.”?
Or are you talking of some other communist party?

Alledged HX sock puppet
Top tip – when a politician says something, he or she doesn’t mean it. If Wen Jiabao says something, he was lying. If Obama says something, he was telling pork pies too. Never trust a word that Gordon Brown says and heaven forbid you actually think your local MP says anything truthful.
Politicians lie – it’s in their job description. Multi-party democracies or totalitarian rulers, they all say what sounds good on a soundbite, they say what they think the audience wants to hear and they lie through their teeth.
You can’t trust the CCP, you can’t trust any western democracy. Only difference between the two, so far, is that the latter can be caught out publicly through a national forum without, generally, a threat of death. The CCP silences it’s critics permanently (and yes, we all know about Blair’s hand in the killing of David Kelly – our press has had a field day recently!)

To SMOTS #69:
“Of course I don’t pretend to speak on behalf o the Chinese people.”— nor do I. Which is why I think that the best way to speak on behalf of the Chinese people is to allow them to do it for themselves.

“Can’t you say that the people chose CCP in 1949 over the KMT” — absolutely, the people made a choice back then. They made their bed, and have been laying in it ever since. My question is, shouldn’t they get to exercise their right to choose more than once a lifetime?

There is a small point though which I would like to raise. I don’t agree with the reasoning of the author that since China is already big enough, it shouldn’t try to ‘take’ the islands. Sovereignty disputes have no relation to the size of the individual country.
In its past border disputes, China has in fact given away more territory than it has taken, even in case of much ‘smaller’ countries.

That is ancient news. Google has always cooperated with the NSA and other branches of government, which is not at all surprising. What they have not done is cooperate with the Chinese government the way Yahoo did in the case of Shi Tao and others.

It is true that Google co-operated with NSA before. And that constituted a breach of the right to privacy of gmail users. The same thing that the Chinese hackers did illegally, the US government used to do (or still does) legally.

Google has to cooperate with the NSA and this is not a secret. I’ll be the first to accuse Google of abuse when it helps arrest dissidents and activists, the way Yahoo did with China. This is no no way even remotely comparable to what the Chinese hackers did, planting trojans and using them to spy on human rights activists. Google has never done anything remotely close to what Yahoo did with Shi Tao, and the evidence indicates they are not likely to do so.

And your point? Politics will always be politics. It will always be dirty, Machiavellian and about power.

So in other words, everything is justified and all your anti-CCP rhetoric can be boiled down to this- antagonizing a rival power.

However, in most liberal democracies, it does mean that: 1) I have a say in terms of a vote

In a two party system your vote is canceled out by some person that disagrees with you. 100 idiots have more influence than 1 normal person.

I am free to criticize politicians without fear of violent reprisals;

You are also free to sit around in disappointment as your criticism amounts to a hill of beans.

3) I am free to stand for office by joining any party or even as an independent

Starving children are also free to pray to the Marvelous Bacon Lord in hopes of being granted fried pork products from the sky, or to have tea parties with the tooth fairy. These would be about as useful as you joining an independent party. Tell you what, I’ll bet you a million dollars that an independent party in America will not win as long as we live.

4) I can have the avenue of judicial review (and yes laws made by politicians can be declared unconstitutional if any citizen went to the courts for judicial review and win the case and it happens)

Technically, this really has nothing to do with democracy. Rule of law is something entirely separate.

5) I can form associations freely to rally people to my cause

If you mean political associations, it won’t amount to much either unless you’re a billionaire.

6) There is an academic freedom, which is highly uphold in democracies and important for progress.

Again, this has little to do with democracy. America has passed luddite anti-science laws during the Bush administration (restricting stem cell research). If you mean academic freedom like pot on the campus then sure. Democracy is perfectly capable of squelching science, however. Either by diverting funds or by enacting laws. It just depends on how stupid the 51% are.

@t.c limand found he is an American married to a Taiwanese woman and has been living there for a few years.

But you can count on him leaving as soon as the PRC announces plans to invade Taiwan, while young Taiwanese men and women are slaughtered.

That was an excellent post btw t.c lim. I know people who have had DPP thugs (local police) ransack their houses on false accusations. Democracy is deeply flawed in many ways, and requires more effort and education on the part of the electorate.

But the problems with the CCP that we all criticize are real. Its members abuse their power. It can’t enforce its own laws against itself so injustices occur, but it tries to suppress information about them.

It’s not that they can’t enforce its own laws. It’s just that they don’t- because of corruption, which in part stems from poverty. The thing is almost every country does this- and if you just international corruption ratings China is at least above the other major developing countries (and many American allies such as the Saudis and Haitians)

It’s not that they can’t enforce its own laws. It’s just that they don’t- because of corruption, which in part stems from poverty.

The most corrupt people in China are fabulously, inconceivably rich. Rich in a way you and I could only dare to dream. Corruption is a disease of the rich, and its victims are the poor. Yes, corruption runs rampant in poorer, less developed countries because they don’t have the structures in place to crack down on it (rule of law, checks and balances, a free media). But to blame poverty for the rampant corruption of China’s princelings and officials with thickly greased palms is quite droll.

To #96:
“In a two party system your vote is canceled out by some person that disagrees with you.”
—which is as it should be. Having a vote doesn’t mean that your preference carries the day; that still depends on what other people around you want. It simply means that you can register your preference, that it will be noted, and it might carry the day. All is which is more than what a PRC citizen can say.

“You are also free to sit around in disappointment as your criticism amounts to a hill of beans.” — and this “hill of beans” can be placed anywhere we want, whereas in China the authorities may well place it on the inside of a jail cell for your pleasure and enjoyment.

“Tell you what, I’ll bet you a million dollars that an independent party in America will not win as long as we live.”
—the point isn’t that an independent party may never win. Whether it wins or not has to do with what such a party stands for, and how its guiding principles and policies resonate with the people. But the system allows such an independent party to present its view to the people, which is something the “system” in China in its current form clearly fails to do.

“Rule of law is something entirely separate” — and the CCP has a ways to go in this regard as well. That being said, the checks and balances provided by the judiciary does play a central role in how democracy works.

How do you go from this statement (“Again, this has little to do with democracy” where “this” refers to academic freedom) to this statement (“Democracy is perfectly capable of squelching science”) in the same paragraph?

But they were most likely not born rich. They are small men who are unable to cope with poverty, and thus predate on those who are even poorer to build a mountain of meaningless crap.

Huge inferiority complexes induced by generations of poverty can push people in that direction.

Having a vote doesn’t mean that your preference carries the day; that still depends on what other people around you want.

No it doesn’t. I means that a bunch of gun-toting, Bible thumping savages from heavily-subsidized American South can funnel billions into a law that repeals marriages from California.

It also means that rich fat cat can deceive or buy his way into power by manipulating irresponsible and frankly idiotic voters.

The main flaw of democracy lovers is that they never seem to understand that the electorate is deeply, deeply flawed. Aside from the fact that a majority of them don’t even vote, a majority of the ones that DO don’t have a clue as to what they’re doing. They don’t bother to know anything, and they vote based on looks, popularity, and media conditioning more than anything else.

This system has created a great number of atrocities in human history. The MAIN difference between democracies and other system of governments, is that people in democracies will generally agree with their “fellow citizens” (as if Texans and Californians are even remotely similar) that it’s preferable to victimize some other country over their “fellow citizens”.

and this “hill of beans” can be placed anywhere we want, whereas in China the authorities may well place it on the inside of a jail cell for your pleasure and enjoyment.

So you think it’s great that you can have toothless protests that do not effect change whatsoever, okay. Not all Chinese protesters are jailed, by the way.

Whether it wins or not has to do with what such a party stands for, and how its guiding principles and policies resonate with the people.

Adolf Hitler had a lot of grand, lofty ideals that resonated with his people and with many Europeans and Americans too. Lip service and feel-goodism does nothing for anyone.

Indian politicians are experts at this. But you can’t survive on lip-service, as many dead and dying Indian children have taught us.

But the system allows such an independent party to present its view to the people, which is something the “system” in China in its current form clearly fails to do.

Allowing independent parties to present its views to the people, I could also present my views on the threat of alien brain suckers to the dolphin population of the Western pacific. But it doesn’t amount to shit, nothing changes. No one’s life is made better. You just waste your time. In fact creating “independent parties” in two party systems just sucks away votes from the mainstream party more aligned with your professed interests, which highlights how ironclad and deceptive the two party system is.

How do you go from this statement (”Again, this has little to do with democracy” where “this” refers to academic freedom) to this statement (”Democracy is perfectly capable of squelching science”) in the same paragraph?

What? They are two unrelated points directed at two unrelated points. Democracy =/= pro-science =/= rule of law.

They are all separate entities. There are many points in time when democratic nations were anti-science, corrupt to the core, incompetent, pandering, deceiving and generally all-around dysfunctional. Look at Haiti and 1930s Germany.

Democracy just means mob rule. You can have rule of law and minimal corruption in a de facto authoritarian state- look at Singapore. Compare that to Haiti. I’m not holding them up as an example for China, just an example that democracy is not required for rule of law and scientific progress as you imply.

“Tell you what, I’ll bet you a million dollars that an independent party in America will not win as long as we live.”
Better chance of winning than in China where an independent party cannot exist – see my ref in comment 80 (you know, those things I never provide…)

To #101:
“I means that a bunch of gun-toting, Bible thumping savages from heavily-subsidized American South can funnel billions into a law that repeals marriages from California.”
— they had their proposition, and the people voted on it. Sounds like you disagree with what the majority of Californians voted for. That’s your right. Unfortunately, your view didn’t carry the day. That’s the way it goes. It seems to me that you find “democracy” unworthy because you sometimes disagree with the decisions that are arrived at democratically. I think you need to immerse yourself more into the concept.

“The main flaw of democracy lovers is that they never seem to understand that the electorate is deeply, deeply flawed.”
—umm, in case you haven’t noticed, humans are flawed. I’d rather humans be allowed to exercise their discretion, flaws and all, than for them to be told in what way they should promulgate certain flaws at the behest of big brother/CCP.

“Not all Chinese protesters are jailed, by the way.”
—wow, that’s great news! That casts the CCP in such a more-flattering light.

BTW, Hitler may have won people over in the Weimar, when it perhaps resembled a democracy. But Hitler really made a name for himself with Nazi Germany, and that’s a lot more similar to the CCP than it is to a democracy. I don’t like comparing Nazi’s with the CCP, but if you’re going to flaunt it, then that’s your call.

“I could also present my views on the threat of alien brain suckers to the dolphin population of the Western pacific. But it doesn’t amount to shit, nothing changes.”
— dude, you could present whatever you want. But if “that” is what you choose to present, then it would amount to exactly what it deserves, as you suggest. So I say that a democracy allows for an independent voice. You say that such a voice carries no weight if it has nothing useful to say. To which I would say: “well, what else did you expect?”. Democracy doesn’t stipulate for the adoption of an independent voice; it simply permits it. Its acceptance, or not, is entirely dependent on the quality of said voice, and such quality is unrelated to democracy.

“In fact creating “independent parties” in two party systems just sucks away votes from the mainstream party”
— would you care to hazard a guess as to what might happen if enough votes were “sucked” away from the mainstream parties?

“democracy is not required for rule of law and scientific progress as you imply.”
—I never implied that. In fact, it seems China is doing some good things in terms of scientific/technologic progress. Rule of law still has a long way to go. And we all know about her strong showing in democracy thus far.

SKC
WRT Chinese research. Now, it might just be me, but China under the CCP doesn’t have the greatest of records on that front. I know, I know – there’s many many Chinese researchers adn many many research papers with Chinese authorship (I have read many – in the field, as it were). But under the CCP, Chinese research has stagnated and of recent news one learns that many Chinese research papers were plagiarised or just falsified.
America and Europe seemingly lead the way. Granted, there are Chinese up and coming research institutions, money os beginning to flow that way. It has also been in the news that Chinese universities are beginning to rival Oxbridge (UK news…), so maybe things are changing…but I wonder. (I can provide the news stories but they’re easily Googled. Not sure about Baidu…that’s not going to get you to “pornsites” that have this news…)

Merp
your comment 104. Sorry? One can get imprisoned for holding views contrary to the party you love, so it is the greatest party in the world? What is your argument?
An American independent party has a far greater chance of winning in the US that the same has in China. One CAN be an independent in the US without worrying about a bullet to the back of the head or an 11 year jail sentence. An independent party in the US can exist – the CCP kills off independence in China. If Ross Perot was Chinese, he’d be doing hard labour. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party would be absolutely fu*ked in China for disagreeing with the the government. But you know that necause you are enjoying the lifestyle without worrying about your views – you can have your views where you live without a care in the world! That’s why you live in the west

About Chinese research, or most important about its impact in mainstream society…

Could you imagine China inventing the Xerox machine, microchip, personal computer, GPS and the Internet? Or could you imagine that it would have allowed to reach mainstream society?

Those inventions were not only “invented” they were made available without major restriction to the society as a whole. See what effects they had today.

What we get from China…. The GFW?

Some Chinese researcher/innovator could invent the next great big thin, but in no way could he/she hope for such an impact in their country as the previous big things mentioned above, and less so in the rest of the world.

And CCP-China with its information/thought control may be missing the next big revolution. The sharing of information through the Internet: cloud, social networks, whatever.

These services, that may seem like toys to some, are just the point of the iceberg, the real problem doesn’t come from blocking this and that service, it comes from blocking the very flow of information.

This flow of information is the very basis for the development of future advances in society and technology.

Who are YOU to judge others as idiots? So are you trying to say that if we give the Chinese people the vote, we will have 1,299,999,999 billion idiotic Chinese voters versus one normal Chinese voter?

You are also free to sit around in disappointment as your criticism amounts to a hill of beans.

Then why does the CCP fear this “hill of beans”?

Tell you what, I’ll bet you a million dollars that an independent party in America will not win as long as we live.

First, if you do read, party discipline in the US is weak. You can have some Democrats voting together with Republicans on some of the legislation and vice versa. Independents do win in other democracies.

Technically, this really has nothing to do with democracy. Rule of law is something entirely separate.

Rule of law requires an independent judiciary. That means the separation of powers. A fundamental feature of a democracy is the separation of powers. Look at China, all its judges are members of the CCP. Any lawsuit against the government is essentially a case of conflict of interest.

If you mean political associations, it won’t amount to much either unless you’re a billionaire.

I am not as money-minded as you. I only want to form civil society groups and independent trade unions. Not everyone is as power-hungry as you.

Democracy is perfectly capable of squelching science,

Didn’t you realize that the debate and controversy over stem cell research is already a manifestation of academic freedom? The fact that nothing is cordoned off from intellectual debate and public discussion is the defining feature of academic freedom. If America is not having academic freedom, Noam Chomsky would have been tortured and executed long time ago. One shuddered to think about Chomsky’s fate if he were a PRC citizen.

And one party dictatorship means enslavement, brainwashing, police state and narcissistic excesses of the “Great Leader”.

You can have rule of law and minimal corruption in a de facto authoritarian state- look at Singapore.

As mentioned, rule of law requires an independent judiciary. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, whose honorary president is Mandela, has issued a report “Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore” which seriously questioned the independence of Singapore’s judiciary:

“A strong and robust rule of law requires respect for and protection of democracy, human rights – including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly – and an independent and impartial judiciary. The IBAHRI is concerned that, despite many positive achievements, the Singapore Government is currently failing to meet established international standards in these areas.”

Oh, and just in case you don’t know, the Prime Minister of Singapore is the highest paid head of government in the world: an annual salary of S$3,870,000 (US$ 2,856,930 ). And Singapore is only 700 sq km with 4.5 million people. Poor Obama looks like a sucker by drawing only US$400,000.

Look at Taiwan, An opposition party, free elections, an uncensored Internet — still the environment is one every Chinese would recognize and feel at home in. “every Chinese???” really? That’s very arrogant. Not sure why I don’t feel that way.

How dare you don’t feel at home in Taiwan as a Chinese? Are they supposed to be “One China”?

Subject’s textbook made the point that democracy is a game for the rich and powerful. Of course like all good propaganda it’s not false, it’s just a half-truth. The real truth is that all political systems are like this – China is definitely not an exception, in fact it is blatantly obvious that it is not. The crucial difference between a democracy and a one-party system is that a democracy makes it possible for this game to be played in the open according to rules, and players who break the rules can be sent off the field. So it is more likely that you end up with a government which is relatively humane and just and fewer abuses of power.

In China it seems that this is seen as something of a luxury, and right now the priority is a government which is actually strong enough to govern and enforce its own laws as well as protect the country. So it is understandable that many people prefer the devil they know rather than risk losing everything by experimenting with democracy. I guess the hope for people like us who hope to see a more humane system in China is that the CCP can evolve. It’s not impossible – Taiwan and South Korea were originally authoritarian states. However things such as internet censorship and control of the media make this less likely to happen. The CCP needs to become capable of governing without controlling everything.

I’d say the system of government that survives is the one that makes the people happy (D’uh, no shit, Mike!). Western style democracy is not that old – and we’ve been doing OK in geopolitical terms of recent Germany did thunderingly well with an autocratic system….and then did thunderingly well with a democratic system. Both England and France cut off a few heads of people that ruled by decree….then decided the new system wasn’t that much better then the old.

Lets see from a business point of view. For example as company manager with a supplier or customer with a shop.

-You can only get your product/supplies from that single choice.
-If something is wrong with delivery or quality you cannot complain, maybe even be sued and end on jail because of it.
-You can not go to another shop/supplier.
-You can not openly discuss/criticize your customer experience openly. (You may in fact get your communications tapped or blocked because of that)
-No discounts whatsoever.
-You cannot return the product either, and least of all request for a refund.
-If something is wrong with product/delivery is certainly your fault.
-Ah yes. Cannot get any meaningful shares on stock to have a say on the board of directors,… and there are no shareholders meetings taking place anywhere(of the meaningful kind).

The estimates of those who died in the Great Leap Forward, for example, come from government records.

The “official” number is 15 million. This includes the Yellow River Floods and other large famines which killed over 4 million people. The 70 million number is not based on this, it’s based on Soviet Russia, extrapolated to China’s population, and another 20-30 million thrown in at the end for good measure. Since we’re talking about google, you can find how these numbers were fabricated.

@sp2How about arguing that the casualty was less than 10 persons during the CR and GLF? After all, it all depends “on the metric” like you have said.

Obviously because it’s simply not believable, if you know anything about anything. What you’re essentially saying is this- my CIA brainwashing tells me 70 million people died, if you give any number that does not match it your line of reasoning is automatically as suspect as something totally insane! Wow, nice circular logic. 10 is about as believable as 70 million.

Yes, it depends on the metric- there are reliable ways to measure deaths and casualties.

Japanese ultra-nationalists can say the same thing too about Nanking:”There is a general idea, but it’s impossible to count so many bodies when a nation is at war.”

You eat kittens and step on babies. Since we don’t need facts, and the only thing that matters is our feelings and opinions, it’s true. If you deny it you deny the Holocaust too, which makes you a bad person!

More facts, less propaganda.

it gives the individual most space and dignity compared to any other systems.

No it doesn’t. See India and Haiti.

Who are YOU to judge others as idiots? So are you trying to say that if we give the Chinese people the vote, we will have 1,299,999,999 billion idiotic Chinese voters versus one normal Chinese voter?

Who are YOU to tell others what kind of government they should have? Well, there is observable fact. I know for a fact that many people are idiots. As for China, the majority of them are quite reasonable- however democracy still means 100 idiots outweigh 1 normal person.

Then why does the CCP fear this “hill of beans”?

Who says they fear them? Killing people is not expensive. If they were to spend trillions of dollars suppressing opposing views or countries- like a certain North American power- then that would be fear.

You can have some Democrats voting together with Republicans on some of the legislation and vice versa

Yes these “elected representatives”, who do whatever the lobbyists want them to.

Independents do win in other democracies.

Most of which are tiny- which means smaller stakes, less influence from the outside, fewer lobbyists.

feature of a democracy is the separation of powers.

No, it’s not. Separation of powers is something entirely different. Democracy is just mob rule by people “special” enough to be given voting rights.

I am not as money-minded as you. I only want to form civil society groups and independent trade unions. Not everyone is as power-hungry as you.

Again, democracy is capable of suppressing these. Minor NGOs are NOT going to feed 1.3 billion people alone. I think your problem is that you think small-scale, China is not small scale. They are not immune from destabilization from the outside by foreigners and other interests.

One shuddered to think about Chomsky’s fate if he were a PRC citizen.

The PRC would like Noam Chomsky imo
@S.K CheungSo hopefully when Chinese people are allowed to choose

Hopefully is not something you build nations by. So hopefully = destabilization.

But it seems awfully paternalistic to say “they can’t be given the choice because they might choose poorly, so we’ll continue to decide for them as it is for their own good”.

More than just being paternalistic, it has a precedent- see Taiwan and Singapore.

— they had their proposition, and the people voted on it. Sounds like you disagree with what the majority of Californians voted for. That’s your right. Unfortunately, your view didn’t carry the day. That’s the way it goes. It seems to me that you find “democracy” unworthy because you sometimes disagree with the decisions that are arrived at democratically. I think you need to immerse yourself more into the concept.

I have “immersed myself”. Democracy means mob rule. It boils down to lobbyists and rich people/organizations deciding everything. Rational people are the minority.

—umm, in case you haven’t noticed, humans are flawed. I’d rather humans be allowed to exercise their discretion, flaws and all, than for them to be told in what way they should promulgate certain flaws at the behest of big brother/CCP.

So you leave everything to the hands of 100 million idiots instead of a few thousand idiots, what’s the difference? Their track record shows that the CCP has done better in the last 10 years than the American electorate. Any mechanism that would prevent disasters under Mao would also not be in place if it were a democracy then- these come from rule of law which is fairly enforced, something entirely separate from your beloved mob rule.

You say that such a voice carries no weight if it has nothing useful to say.

I say it carries no weight because it carries no weight. The rich have all the power and they will simply shout over you. This is why independents will probably never win.

Democracy doesn’t stipulate for the adoption of an independent voice; it simply permits it.

Translation: it allows you an exercise in futility.

— would you care to hazard a guess as to what might happen if enough votes were “sucked” away from the mainstream parties?

Tell you what, why don’t you start an independent party and win in the 2012 elections. Then I’ll eat my words.

@ecodeltaAt least we can choose which lie to live with. Better than living all the time under under the same big lie

So you can choose one lie over the other, congratulations. I hope the democratic Spanish government finds you something to do, you seem to have more free time recently.

Could you imagine China inventing the Xerox machine, microchip, personal computer, GPS and the Internet? Or could you imagine that it would have allowed to reach mainstream society?

Can you imagine China inventing gunpowder, paper, compass? Because all of that happened when China was even more authoritarian. America invented those things because they had more money for research. They got it by taking it from other peoples.

Nazi Germany was exceptionally inventive for that reason as well- they had lots of funding (from many foul enterprises). Much of modern rocketry is based off of Nazi science. Very in line with ecodelta’s ideals…

What we get from China…. The GFW?

Scale and efficiency. I don’t know what they teach in your schools, but these things are valuable. I guess you think subsistence farmers should melt down their implements for Bunsen burners.

Seriously, have you given much thought to how innovation works? China is the most innovative for those in its GDP class, and GDP/Capita class. Hell, it produces more patents than America on a per dollar spent on R&D basis.

Some Chinese researcher/innovator could invent the next great big thin, but in no way could he/she hope for such an impact in their country as the previous big things mentioned above, and less so in the rest of the world.

Right because we all know Chinese people would hate the opportunity to use new technologies to create growth.

sharing of information through the Internet: cloud, social networks, whatever.

Oh god what will we ever do without facebook.

@Mike Goldthorpewe can chose the dark horse on the side

And I can pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to smite my enemies, it’ll do you about as much good considering 95% of the population is going to vote for a mainstream party with infinitely more lobbyists and connections.

An American independent party has a far greater chance of winning in the US that the same has in China.

No they don’t. A non-democrat, non-republican party has a 0% chance of winning. Same as a non-CCP party winning in China.

One CAN be an independent in the US without worrying about a bullet to the back of the head or an 11 year jail sentence.

IT. DOESN’T. MATTER.

It doesn’t matter when independents HAVE NO POWER. Do you get it yet? You’re wasting your time. All of your pet causes will be ignored or trampled on by leveraged interests.

Obama’s make-up artists alone probably had the GDP of a small nation in 2008.

An independent party in the US can exist – the CCP kills off independence in China.

Who cares if it can exist? It doesn’t effect change. The CCP does not kill off independence- it jails them usually. There’s a difference. Obviously, this is not a good thing.

But whatever, the CCP might as well allow an independent party once they are so rich it’s impossible to compete. Then you can stop worrying.

you can have your views where you live without a care in the world! That’s why you live in the west

I could have my views living anywhere. Latin Americans, Arabs, Russians, etc would love me.

I wonder how trade unions in places like Europe manage to paralyze the country if they are truly “suppressed” in the CCP-style and the frequent complaints about trade unions being too powerful.

Tell you what, why don’t you start an independent party and win in the 2012 elections. Then I’ll eat my words.

Tell you what, why don’t you start an independent party in China and win all the seats in the National People’s Congress, The CCPCC and take over the Politburo and the Central People’s Government from the CCP. Then I’ll eat my words.

To #118:
“Who are YOU to tell others what kind of government they should have?”
—an excellent question. It’s also one I could ask of you. And it’s certainly one that can be asked of every member of the CCP. Who is Hu Jintao to tell PRC citizens what kind of government they should have? Seems to me that a reasonable person would go ask PRC citizens what kind of government they would want for themselves. And you know what, if PRC citizens “chose” to have the CCP for their government, I think that would be fantastic. Too bad the CCP isn’t confident enough in her own ability to win the support of her own people to put it to the test.

“Hopefully is not something you build nations by.”
—umm, China already is a nation. So we’re not talking about building anything. We’re talking about the people having meaningful input into how a nation (that is already very much in existence) is run. Hopefully you can distinguish the difference.

“More than just being paternalistic, it has a precedent- see Taiwan and Singapore.” — and that’s fantastic. But once again, I’m not comparing. I’m saying that the CCP is paternalistic, and it’s too bad she feels it necessary to treat PRC citizens like children. However, as before, I’m impressed that you treat Taiwan like a separate entity. Good on you for that.

“Rational people are the minority.”
— from the way you keep hammering this point, it seems that “rational people” to you are those who agree with you. Thankfully, they are in the “minority”.

“So you leave everything to the hands of 100 million idiots instead of a few thousand idiots”
— and the basis of you saying that all those people are idiots is….? Let me guess…is it because they disagree with you?

“This is why independents will probably never win.”
— if that’s the will of the people, then so be it. Democracy is not there to guarantee victory for any one political entity; but it does allow for the existence of separate political entities, and such entities are free to appeal to the people. The only system that “guarantees” the victory of one political entity is the CCP’s system. And that doesn’t reflect the will of the people.

“Translation: it allows you an exercise in futility.”
— well, it sure is encouraging that you find the existence of an independent voice and the freedom of expression to be futile exercises. On the one hand, you criticize “democracy” for somehow preventing “independent parties” from winning; then because they don’t win, you say that their existence is futile. Your conclusion is probably that one should simply eschew democracy for a one party state. Gosh, I hope you live in China cuz they’ve got a system that would be perfect for your tastes.

“Tell you what, why don’t you start an independent party and win in the 2012 elections.”
—once again, you completely miss the point. Democracy allows an independent party to exist. But it’s up to the people to determine if such a party “wins” anything. That’s the whole darned problem with democracy: rather than a party/government/autocratic ruler telling people what they want, it’s the people who get to decide for themselves. That’s certainly a thinker when it comes to the CCP.

We should ask the CCP to have a national referendum tomorrow to see if people want democracy or the present regime. Woo hoo!

We should ask Native Americans if they want invaders expelled back to Europe. It’s “fair” too.

Are you Professor Sun Dongdong? You sounded exactly like him.

Oh look, ad hominems.

Tell you what, why don’t you start an independent party in China and win all the seats in the National People’s Congress, The CCPCC and take over the Politburo and the Central People’s Government from the CCP. Then I’ll eat my words.

I’m glad you could admit you lost the argument. I didn’t say I could take over China- you implied that an independent party could win in the U.S. So go ahead, go be the next president.

How different? Like having all members in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state belonging to one single political party???

Work on your reading comprehension. Separation of powers =/= democracy. Stop trying to rehabilitate the concept, to sell the “package”.

@S.K CheungWho is Hu Jintao to tell PRC citizens what kind of government they should have?

He’s the established leader- regardless of how that came to be. Which is arguably better than some other guy randomly chosen by a clusterfuck.

Seems to me that a reasonable person would go ask PRC citizens what kind of government they would want for themselves.

And you might not like the answer

if PRC citizens “chose” to have the CCP for their government, I think that would be fantastic.

They did. There was widespread rebellion in rural areas. Again, sometimes the West will not like the outcome.

Too bad the CCP isn’t confident enough in her own ability to win the support of her own people to put it to the test.

They could have a referendum. There’d be no point, however. It’d just destabilize the nation and waste everyone’s time- it’s no wonder Westerners are “daring” them to do so.

We’re talking about the people having meaningful input into how a nation (that is already very much in existence) is run.

The people? You mean the 51% of those who vote.

I’m saying that the CCP is paternalistic, and it’s too bad she feels it necessary to treat PRC citizens like children.

Because only the CCP is paternalistic, not Westerners who force their ways on everyone else.

from the way you keep hammering this point, it seems that “rational people” to you are those who agree with you. Thankfully, they are in the “minority”.

Yes because the majority is always right- like those who voted for Adolf Hitler.

and the basis of you saying that all those people are idiots is….? Let me guess…is it because they disagree with you?

No, because studies have shown that 1) they voted for George Bush 2) they believe the earth is 6,000 years old 3) they can’t find Russia on a map

so on and so forth.

if that’s the will of the people, then so be it.

Nazi Germany was the will of the people. Overwhelmingly so. Using this logic China already “voted”. Rural China favored Mao.

and such entities are free to appeal to the people.

As long as they have enough money, sure.

On the one hand, you criticize “democracy” for somehow preventing “independent parties” from winning; then because they don’t win, you say that their existence is futile.

There is no contradiction. The way the system is set up, big parties are favored. Independent parties are discouraged. i.e lobbyists.

Your conclusion is probably that one should simply eschew democracy for a one party state. Gosh, I hope you live in China cuz they’ve got a system that would be perfect for your tastes.

My point is that democracy isn’t perfect. Gosh, I hope you live in Nazi Germany cuz they’ve got a system that would be perfect for your tastes. If not try rural India, you can live in an untouchable subsistence farmer community.

Democracy allows an independent party to exist.

Once again, you miss the point. Independent parties, as far as high-stakes positions are concerned, are irrelevant. They accomplish absolutely nothing aside from fracture the mainstream party aligned to their professed interests. This is a systemic flaw- not a chance occurrence.

But it’s up to the people to determine if such a party “wins” anything.

“The people” often make idiotic decisions.

rather than a party/government/autocratic ruler telling people what they want, it’s the people who get to decide for themselves.

No it’s not. It’s 51% telling the other 49% what to do, or two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. You try to make it sound like it’s me bitter about being on the losing side of a vote, but when that happens 45% of the population agrees.

Anyhow you do it your way and I’ll do it my why, personally, if I were being operated on I’d prefer it if a trained professional did the surgery.

You can ask for a show of hands from laymen and perhaps they can choose a reasonably attractive and wealthy “representative” to give you a triple bypass.

Singapore is less corrupt than McDonaldstan, and their opposition party is more or less a non-factor.

Of course you didn’t. I can tune in to anything and buy whatever newspapers i want. You are stuck with CCTV and People’s Daily and their surrogates. Comparison will only make you feel inferior.

Yes because all of my links to wikipedia, google, etc obviously prove that I get all my information from within the GFW. You know you lost the argument when all you can do is stick your tongue out and call me a Communist. Grow up.

“How different is Google’s view of information to that of the Chinese government. It’s not about domination at all – but freedom and empowerment of the disenfranchised and downtrodden.” from Stimson’s article.

If that’s truly Google’s view then I’d say they’re either disingenuous or naive. Perhaps they have too much faith in the nature of humans. The internet is just a medium. There is at least as much harmful misinformation as there is useful information. I would even go so far as to suggest that the internet gives those with the know-how but evil intent another mean to take advantage of the disenfranchised and downtrodden. See, there is free flow of information in the US. So what? Big money still calls the shots in Washington. Do I see any fraudulent banker prosecuted? Aside from the occasional huff and puff from Obama against “fat cat bankers” etc., has anything changed? To most people, the greatest value of the internet is all the porn they can have access to 24/7.

Singapore is less corrupt than McDonaldstan, and their opposition party is more or less a non-factor.

With a PM who has the highest pay in the world and opposition figures sued to bankruptcy in various lawsuits, what is so surprising?

The Law Lords’s conclusion about the case involving local opposition figure Jeyaratnam in 1988 when Singapore still had the UK Privy Council as its final court of appeal (by a twist of fate, the Singapore govt terminated appeals to the Privy Council shortly after this case):

“Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments the appellant and his co-accused Wong have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they were not guilty. The appellant, in addition, had been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession. Their Lordships’ order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore.”

To 127:
“He’s the established leader- regardless of how that came to be.”
—have you not been paying any attention whatsoever? Who, might I ask, established Hu as the leader? Oh, that’s right, the CCP. So the CCP installs Hu as her leader, and by extension, the leader of the Chinese government. Maybe I missed it, but could you show me where the Chinese people got the chance to express their wishes for what kind of government they should have? (and please, no more of that “CCP members are Chinese people too” bit…that’s just silliness).
Furthermore, how can it be “regardless” of how that came to be? The issue regarding how Hu passes as the Chinese leader, without a mandate from the Chinese people, is at the crux of the matter, and one that can’t be disregarded, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you to discuss.

“And you might not like the answer”
—again, you seem to not be paying attention. If the Chinese people choose the CCP for their very own, that’s fantastic. It’s not the answer that troubles me; it’s the fact that the question is not posed to the Chinese people that I find reprehensible. And yes, they did “choose” 60 years ago. Perhaps they can have another? I didn’t realize (and I bet they didn’t either) that it was meant to be a once in a lifetime (or more) choice.

“It’d just destabilize the nation”
—OMG could CCP supporters get out of bed without saying “destabilize”. How would giving choice to the people destabilize?

“The people? You mean the 51% of those who vote.”
—hey, you give people the right to vote. You can’t force them to exercise that right. People who choose not to vote are making a choice as well. If Chinese people are given the right to vote and choose to forgo that right, that’s up to them. But thanks to the CCP, one less thing for PRC citizens to worry about.

“Because only the CCP is paternalistic…”
—gosh, you say that as if it were a good thing…

“Yes because the majority is always right- like those who voted for Adolf Hitler.”
— and the CCP is akin to Nazi Germany. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, do you have any other points to make that can spare me from comparing the CCP to Nazis?

“Nazi Germany was the will of the people.”
— see above.

“The way the system is set up, big parties are favored. Independent parties are discouraged”
—so by that metric, how does that represent a weakness of democracy? And since you like to compare so much, let’s compare, shall we? In China, there’s one party, and not only are there no “independent” parties, but you can be thrown in jail for subversion just for talking about it. This is better how?

“My point is that democracy isn’t perfect.”
—I didn’t realize we were debating what constituted perfection. Is there such a political system? My point is not that democracy is perfect, but it is sure a heckuva lot less imperfect that whatever deal the CCP’s got going (at least as it comes to the people who are governed under it; I imagine it’s quite peachy for CCP members). Oh, and imitation is the highest form of flattery, so you should stop before I start to blush.

“Independent parties, as far as high-stakes positions are concerned, are irrelevant.”
—so what, exactly, is your point. That democracy is flawed because independent parties are irrelevant when it comes to high stakes positions? My point, which you’ve clearly whiffed on repeatedly, is that that is not the role of a democracy. You complain about democracy on the basis of something that it doesn’t even try to be. If you mandate that such and such a party has to win such and such a position, that’s no longer a democracy. Do you get it now?

““The people” often make idiotic decisions.”
—thanks, “dad”.

“I’d prefer it if a trained professional did the surgery.”
—good call, but I’d also prefer to be able to choose the doctor who will operate on me, rather than being told by “dad” that “yes, trust me, the guy I recommend is the best and you don’t need to consider anyone else, and in fact I’ve seen to it that there is no one else available for your consideration”.

BTW, that’s why i thought it was brilliant when the US characterized her arms sale to Taiwan as a means of providing stability in cross-strait relations. I mean, how can CCP oppose anything that’s meant to improve “stability”?

In fact, Obama should’ve characterized his meeting with the Dalai Lama as a means toward fomenting stability in Tibet. The CCP may have clamoured for a joint news conference and perhaps an address by the Dalai Lama to a combined sitting of the houses of Congress had it been framed that way.

Strewth, mate, you gave up easily!
I read your comments, yes, they made sense but then…they also didn’t. You by yourself can’t change things so fuck it? Not the western way, I’m afraid.
As for the other nationalities that would welcome you – you didn’t go to them. Moot point, surely?

@spWith a PM who has the highest pay in the world and opposition figures sued to bankruptcy in various lawsuits, what is so surprising?

$2mil a year is nothing compared to the extravagant wealth American politicians are practically *required* to have in place before even thinking of running. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to put Obama in office, and for McCain to fail. This would have been enough to pay LKY for 150 years. And how many billions do lobbyists funnel into the pockets of democratic leaders and their cronies?

Who is the loser? =)

You are. BTW, I’m not behind the GFW. There are Chinese speaking populations outside of China, since you don’t seem to realize.

@S.K Cheunghave you not been paying any attention whatsoever? Who, might I ask, established Hu as the leader? Oh, that’s right, the CCP.

Yep. You’ll have to learn how to deal with it. Or, you could pick up a pitchfork and start a revolution in China. Even if you do manage to succeed, there’s no guarantee that anything will change for the better. It could get worse. If the CCP is really as ruthless as you claim, what hope do you have of inciting “regime change”?

Maybe I missed it, but could you show me where the Chinese people got the chance to express their wishes for what kind of government they should have?

Through opinion polls and judging by the fact that they haven’t tossed the CCP out yet.

If the Chinese people choose the CCP for their very own, that’s fantastic. It’s not the answer that troubles me; it’s the fact that the question is not posed to the Chinese people that I find reprehensible.

Again, if the CCP ran an election they could easily brainwash hundreds of millions of people into voting for them. It’d just be a huge waste of time and money, and they’d be seen as appeasing the West- which could potentially cause unrest leading to “regime change”.

How would giving choice to the people destabilize?

You’re not being specific. Most democracy-lovers imply that it’ll come with a “package”- i.e unrestricted market access for Western mega-corporations which will allow them to set up permanent monopolies. These will in turn destroy Chinese businesses and whitewash East Asian culture. They also want unrestricted proselytization (aka “freedom of religion”) by uberchurches, unrestricted dominance of Western media, on top of the underlying weaknesses inherent in developing countries (poor financial position, vulnerable institutions).

In short you’re asking China to commit suicide. If the CCP starts bowing to the West, they need to be destroyed. That’s the bottom line. The thing is they’ve been doing “good enough” in the last few years, so the Chinese population has no reason to risk so much to kill them.

and the CCP is akin to Nazi Germany. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, do you have any other points to make that can spare me from comparing the CCP to Nazis?

America is more like Nazi Germany than China is or ever was. That’s not debatable. You even have your mini Holocaust in the Middle East.

how does that represent a weakness of democracy?

That’s not the point. The point is that democracy does not live up to its own delusions. The point is that democracy-lovers are deluded.

In China, there’s one party, and not only are there no “independent” parties, but you can be thrown in jail for subversion just for talking about it. This is better how?

It’s not better. It’s just not much worse, either.

but it is sure a heckuva lot less imperfect that whatever deal the CCP’s got going

Haiti, Nazi Germany, India, all democracies.

Iran, Chile, Congo, all democracies America “ended” because they voted for the wrong person.

Japan, South Korea, democracies America has bought to the core.

Democracy is a failure. The real point of contention here is that the Chinese nation, whatever it is, is not subservient to the West. A democratic China will not necessarily be pro-Western. If indeed a democratic China would be more competitive with the West for the limited resources in this world, then that alone is proof enough that the West does not really want a democratic China, but a weak China weakened by democracy, where every politician can have his wheel greased by leveraged foreign (read: Western) interests.

That democracy is flawed because independent parties are irrelevant when it comes to high stakes positions? My point, which you’ve clearly whiffed on repeatedly, is that that is not the role of a democracy.

My point, again, is that democracy-lovers are delusional. Democracy does not express the will of the “people”. It expresses the will of 51%.

Let me give you one example, what do you think will happen when ethnic interests come to a vote, and the “91% Han” Chinese vote against some tiny minority (say, the so-called “Uighur”) that wants to usurp land, resources, whatever?

Do you really see that scenario playing out well for Western interests?

but I’d also prefer to be able to choose the doctor who will operate on me, rather than being told by “dad”

Because “dad” is so much worse than 100 million people fundamentally politically opposed to you who will vote in ridiculous legislation just to antagonize you and the rest of the political minority. “Dad” at least pretends to give a shit about you- 100 million random strangers could care less if you die on the operating table.

The analogy is terrible, by the way. I’m not advocating a system where “big brother” or “dad” calls all the shots. I’m just equating it with dumbocracy, where 2 morons from can intervene in your private life and vote out rational choice.

This is where the law comes in- and the law is separate from the mindless mob that would grind you up for pennies.

You’re not being specific. Most democracy-lovers imply that it’ll come with a “package”- i.e unrestricted market access for Western mega-corporations which will allow them to set up permanent monopolies. These will in turn destroy Chinese businesses and whitewash East Asian culture. They also want unrestricted proselytization (aka “freedom of religion”) by uberchurches, unrestricted dominance of Western media, on top of the underlying weaknesses inherent in developing countries (poor financial position, vulnerable institutions).

In short you’re asking China to commit suicide. If the CCP starts bowing to the West, they need to be destroyed. That’s the bottom line. The thing is they’ve been doing “good enough” in the last few years, so the Chinese population has no reason to risk so much to kill them.

Iran, Chile, Congo, all democracies America “ended” because they voted for the wrong person.

Japan, South Korea, democracies America has bought to the core.

Democracy is a failure. The real point of contention here is that the Chinese nation, whatever it is, is not subservient to the West. A democratic China will not necessarily be pro-Western. If indeed a democratic China would be more competitive with the West for the limited resources in this world, then that alone is proof enough that the West does not really want a democratic China, but a weak China weakened by democracy, where every politician can have his wheel greased by leveraged foreign (read: Western) interests.”

Haiti – from Wikipedia we have
“Politics
Main article: Politics of Haiti
See also: Elections in Haiti, National Assembly of Haiti, President of Haiti, and Military of Haiti
The government of Haiti is a semi-presidential republic, a pluriform[clarification needed] multiparty system wherein the President of Haiti is head of state elected directly by popular elections.[citation needed] The Prime Minister acts as head of government and is appointed by the President, chosen from the majority party in the National Assembly. Executive power is exercised by the President and Prime Minister who together constitute the government.

Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the National Assembly of Haiti. The government is organized unitarily, thus the central government delegates powers to the departments without a constitutional need for consent. The current structure of Haiti’s political system was set forth in the Constitution of Haiti on 29 March 1987. The current president is René Préval.

Haitian politics have been contentious. Most Haitians are aware of Haiti’s history as the only country in the Western Hemisphere to undergo a successful slave revolution. On the other hand, the long history of oppression by dictators – including François Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude Duvalier – has markedly affected the nation. France and the United States have repeatedly intervened in Haitian politics since the country’s founding, sometimes at the request of one party or another. In January 2010, up to 10,000 U.S. troops are to be sent to earthquake-hit Haiti.[54]

Cité Soleil, Haiti’s largest slum in the capital of Port-au-Prince, has been called “the most dangerous place on Earth” by the United Nations.[55] The slum is a stronghold of supporters of former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide,[56] who, according to the BBC, “accused the US of forcing him out – an accusation the US rejected as ‘absurd’”.[57]

According to Corruption Perceptions Index, Haiti has a particularly high level of corruption.[58][59]”

Not the best example of democracy.

Nazi Germany – again, from net sources…http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm – to the point, this one
From wikipedia we have the line
“The new government installed a totalitarian dictatorship in a series of measures in quick succession (see the article on Nazi forced coordination or Gleichschaltung for details).”
Sooo, no – Nazi Germany was not a democracy. Mind you, the BRD (or GDR, in English) was wildly successful. It is still the European powehouse…and democratic to boot.

India – yep, a democracy. Quite successful too, by all accounts.

So I don’t get your assertion that democracies are failures. You give some examples of countries that are not democracies, countries that are only recently democratic and one that is seen as a competitor to China.
One party communist run countries are doomed to failure. I give you….drum roll, maestro…
USSR
GDR
Romania
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Bulgaria
etc, etc, etc.

Using your argument, the CCP is doomed. It’s there with North Korea and Cuba as single party communist states…does this not worry you?

Most democracy-lovers imply that it’ll come with a “package”- i.e unrestricted market access for Western mega-corporations which will allow them to set up permanent monopolies. These will in turn destroy Chinese businesses and whitewash East Asian culture. They also want unrestricted proselytization (aka “freedom of religion”) by uberchurches, unrestricted dominance of Western media, on top of the underlying weaknesses inherent in developing countries (poor financial position, vulnerable institutions).

In short you’re asking China to commit suicide. If the CCP starts bowing to the West, they need to be destroyed.

If China were to be democratic, it would still be Chinese people doing the implementation. Why should Chinese democrats not be able to act in their own national interest? Even if China needs the degree of economic and cultural protectionism that you seem to be assuming, I’d question whether it takes a one-party state with absolute power to deliver it.

In China, there’s one party, and not only are there no “independent” parties, but you can be thrown in jail for subversion just for talking about it. This is better how?

It’s not better. It’s just not much worse, either.

It is third world.

Democracy is a failure. The real point of contention here is that the Chinese nation, whatever it is, is not subservient to the West. A democratic China will not necessarily be pro-Western. If indeed a democratic China would be more competitive with the West for the limited resources in this world, then that alone is proof enough that the West does not really want a democratic China, but a weak China weakened by democracy, where every politician can have his wheel greased by leveraged foreign (read: Western) interests.

There is no reason to assume a democratic China would be subservient, or pro-West. In realpolitik terms, there is also no reason for the West to prefer a democratic China over the current one either. I don’t think the US is at a disadvantage dealing with one-party states, if it were it would be less likely to overturn democratic regimes.
Your argument that democracies are inherently weak was used by Hitler and Mussolini, events proved them wrong.

That democracy is flawed because independent parties are irrelevant when it comes to high stakes positions? My point, which you’ve clearly whiffed on repeatedly, is that that is not the role of a democracy.

My point, again, is that democracy-lovers are delusional. Democracy does not express the will of the “people”. It expresses the will of 51%.

It does allow all people who choose to vote to have input. And it’s not necessarily the case that independents and minority candidates have no influence. Depending on how the system is set up they can have a lot or a little. Most of your examples seem to be assuming a US-style 2-party system which is an exception rather than the rule.

Let me give you one example, what do you think will happen when ethnic interests come to a vote, and the “91% Han” Chinese vote against some tiny minority (say, the so-called “Uighur”) that wants to usurp land, resources, whatever?

All your objections to democracy have been heard before and this one is a classic textbook argument for checks and balances. On the other hand the CCP doesn’t provide any solution. If they wanted to expropriate Uighur land they could do it tomorrow.

I’m not advocating a system where “big brother” or “dad” calls all the shots. I’m just equating it with dumbocracy, where 2 morons from can intervene in your private life and vote out rational choice.

This is where the law comes in- and the law is separate from the mindless mob that would grind you up for pennies.

I think we can probably agree that democracy without rule of law would be worse than China’s present system. But a rule of law implemented by a dictatorship can still grind you up.

To #149:
“BTW, I’m not behind the GFW.”
—that’s just so typical of folks like you. China’s system is the most fantastic thing in the world, when you’re not living under it. As for the “putting your money where your mouth is” observation I offered earlier, if you are so disenchanted with a “democratic” system and so enthralled with an authoritarian one, it is certainly curious that we find you here and not there to enjoy authoritarianism in all its glory.

“You’ll have to learn how to deal with it.”
—hey, it’s no skin off my back. But I feel for the PRC citizens who have to endure it every day.

“Through opinion polls…”
—oh yes, I’ve seen those. I even saw one where they sampled 40% of the population who reside in big cities in China. Quite the rigorous scientific display, replete with confidence intervals 19 times out of 20. Too bad the CCP hasn’t seen fit to sample the entire country…but I guess that’s not something an authoritarian regime puts their mind to.

“if the CCP ran an election they could easily brainwash…”
—I suppose you’re right. Even if the CCP had the stones to see what PRC citizens actually want (which they don’t), they wouldn’t actually be foolish enough to let those citizens actually decide in an unfettered way. Such a “thoughtful” “dad”.

“How would giving choice to the people destabilize?”
—I’m not sure how much more specific I can be. Seems like a pretty straight-forward question to me. Alas, not much of an answer from you as yet.

“i.e unrestricted market access for Western mega-corporations which will allow them to set up permanent monopolies…”
— huh?!? Let’s try another straight-forward question. What’s the basis for such an assumption? I said PRC citizens should get to make decisions about how they themselves are governed. Where is it even suggested that “western” this or that will be setting up permanent this or that? It seems yet again that you’re arguing against something you hoped I had said, rather than something I had actually said. You should have that problem checked out.

“If the CCP starts bowing to the West…”
—how does offering choice to PRC citizens constitute “bowing to the west”? You can add that to the list of straight-forward questions that you need to answer.

“The point is that democracy does not live up to its own delusions.”
— and those “delusions” are….??? (that’s probably a straight-forward question too…you take your time)

“Democracy is a failure.”
—and the basis of this statement is…? Well, I’ll give you this much. Your writing generates a lot more questions than they provide answers.

“A democratic China will not necessarily be pro-Western.”
—good god, dude, what is your impediment? I wish for a democratic China so that it will be pro-Chinese people, as opposed to an authoritarian China that is merely pro-CCP. Who said anything about pro-western? Well, you did, I guess.

“Democracy does not express the will of the “people”. It expresses the will of 51%.”
—yes, this is true, democracy reflects the will of the majority of people. There is no system that reflects and champions the will of every single individual, unless you make each individual an independent political entity. I suppose that would be a shortcoming of any political system. I’d say that a system that reflects the majority will is better than one that reflects only the will of the central politburo.

I see that you are referring to what most people would call tyranny of the majority. And absolutely, that is something that needs to be addressed. And you address that by guaranteeing certain inalienable rights (some might even call such a thing a charter, or a constitution) and support those rights through the rule of law. It doesn’t seem sufficient to warrant disavowing democracy altogether. Moreover, there seems even less protection against tyranny when you get a tiny minority of people (for instance, like in a central politburo) who make all the decisions and yet are answerable to nobody.

“Because “dad” is so much worse than 100 million people fundamentally politically opposed to you who will vote in ridiculous legislation just to antagonize you and the rest of the political minority.”
—ummm, I think you’re getting confused. “dad” is the CCP. And you know what, who cares if the CCP rots in a festering hole. The important thing is that PRC citizens get to choose for themselves.

“The analogy is terrible, by the way.”
—that’s unfortunate, since you brought up the analogy of the doctor to begin with.

“I’m not advocating a system where “big brother” or “dad” calls all the shots.”
—how ironic, since that’s just what you get with the CCP.

Rule of law, btw, is a great thing. Even better when the people decide on the laws under which they themselves are governed, rather than being subjected to a set of laws courtesy of (you guessed it) big brother/dad.

@ Peterit would still be Chinese people doing the implementation. Why should Chinese democrats not be able to act in their own national interest?

Because laws would be watered down. The West is very rich in blood money and colonial plunder and can buy (some) key people. The CCP is of course not immune- but a “democratic” country would be much more vulnerable.

It is third world.

As America will be in 50 years.

There is no reason to assume a democratic China would be subservient, or pro-West. In realpolitik terms, there is also no reason for the West to prefer a democratic China over the current one either. I don’t think the US is at a disadvantage dealing with one-party states, if it were it would be less likely to overturn democratic regimes.
Your argument that democracies are inherently weak was used by Hitler and Mussolini, events proved them wrong.

Events proved them wrong? America is in an unassailable (relative to Europe) geographic position. It is infinitely wealthy in terms of material resources. Hitler’s main problem was that while they had a powerful military machine, their underlying ideology was insane- America run by a dictatorship would be immensely powerful. However, there is no reason for the citizens to suffer authoritarianism as realistically speaking, there are no real threats to America’s power. So they can “afford” a softer political system that deludes the citizen.

And yes, in terms of realpolitik a democratic China will be no better to the West than an authoritarian one. However you’re missing the key point- the transition- which always paralyzes a nation. This is what America wants, to slow China down so it can be contained. Americans will be equally hostile to a democratic China- democracy won’t make the Chinese white and European.

It does allow all people who choose to vote to have input. And it’s not necessarily the case that independents and minority candidates have no influence. Depending on how the system is set up they can have a lot or a little. Most of your examples seem to be assuming a US-style 2-party system which is an exception rather than the rule.

The two-party system of America is the natural end game of democracy. US seats are high-stakes affairs. Leveraged interests are simply not as interested in, say Switzerland, as they are in the U.S.

All your objections to democracy have been heard before and this one is a classic textbook argument for checks and balances. On the other hand the CCP doesn’t provide any solution. If they wanted to expropriate Uighur land they could do it tomorrow.

That was just a hypothetical- Uighur land is in Uzbekistan, so they aren’t expropriating any of it. Checks and balances are also not inherent to democracy, they are something separate that could be applied to any system.

@sptwoUsing the freedom of information in other jurisdictions to defend the CCP.
Hoho, a typical hypocrite. This is worse than being a loser.

I’m not attacking freedom of information. Work on your reading comprehension. If I were in China I’d be criticizing the West still. If I were in India, or Latin America, or Russia, or Africa I’d also be criticizing the West.

It’s simple- the West is the number one problem. As long as criticism of the West is allowed, everything else takes a back seat.

Quite successful? Do some research. I don’t feel like posting all of the statistics again, just for you to plug your ears and ignore it.

@ S.K Cheung—that’s just so typical of folks like you. China’s system is the most fantastic thing in the world, when you’re not living under it. As for the “putting your money where your mouth is” observation I offered earlier, if you are so disenchanted with a “democratic” system and so enthralled with an authoritarian one, it is certainly curious that we find you here and not there to enjoy authoritarianism in all its glory.

Move to India. Put your money where your mouth is. I’d have no problem living in China, by the way. I lived in Taiwan when it wasn’t free either- and Singapore is a fine place.

The problem with your argument is that you don’t seem to realize that the wealth of these “democracies” you tout was built on genocide and robbery. Either that or a regional wealth effect created by genocide.

So either move to India, or live on an Indian Reservation.

But I feel for the PRC citizens who have to endure it every day.

If you really “feel for the PRC citizens” then get involved with NGOs here, instead of wringing your hands. But I really doubt you do. I’m sure you’re 1) trying to make yourself feel good or 2) trying to destabilize the PRC, which will hurt the citizens more than anything.

oh yes, I’ve seen those. I even saw one where they sampled 40% of the population who reside in big cities in China.

Here’s one of them

In China, the survey was conducted May 21-31, 2005 among a probability sample of 2,191 respondents in six major cities and their surrounding rural areas (Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, and Wuhan). The sample is thus disproportionately urban and is not representative of the entire country. Interviews were conducted in-person, in the appropriate Chinese dialect, with adults ages 18-60. The margin of sampling error for the results is plus or minus 2%.

They sampled urban dwellers period. Unless you’re insisting India’s rural and urban gap is not even wider, then you’d just make yourself look even more misinformed.

That, and these were polls by foreigners, not the CCP- so you missed that one again.

I suppose you’re right. Even if the CCP had the stones to see what PRC citizens actually want (which they don’t)

Even if the USA had the stones to see what Real, Native Americans actually want (which they don’t)… blah blah blah

Which brings about another point, democracy is all about breeding the opposition out. So many European anchor babies denying the rights of real Americans with their votes.

I’m not sure how much more specific I can be. Seems like a pretty straight-forward question to me. Alas, not much of an answer from you as yet.

A change of government almost always destabilizes a nation. If China were a democracy now, I would oppose a change to the real and current system as well.

how does offering choice to PRC citizens constitute “bowing to the west”? You can add that to the list of straight-forward questions that you need to answer.

Because it destabilizes China, which is in the West’s interests. Otherwise, they would not want a democratic China. You always hear Western panderers talking about how a democratic China would be SO innovative, SO competitive- you really think Joe Dirt Afrolyncher in Texas wants a highly competitive China? Look at how they portrayed Japan in the 80s.

The simple fact is, democracy would create instability and weakness for no gain. A properly enforced rule of law, better laws, (product safety, anti-corruption, building codes) more transparency, the right to publish peer-reviewed and well-sourced publications without fear of persecution, are what China needs the most.

These will be much more attainable once you drop the fantasy of mob rule in China.

and those “delusions” are….??? (that’s probably a straight-forward question too…you take your time)

Democracy lovers think that democracy cures all ills. See Stimson’s original posts. It does NOT. It creates many ills, like Nazi Germany.

and the basis of this statement is…? Well, I’ll give you this much. Your writing generates a lot more questions than they provide answers.

I already gave you a list. Nazi Germany was voted in. You will never be able to get around this fact, no matter how many times you plug your ears, deny the facts, revise history and flat-out lie to everyone.

yes, this is true, democracy reflects the will of the majority of people. There is no system that reflects and champions the will of every single individual, unless you make each individual an independent political entity. I suppose that would be a shortcoming of any political system

Reflects the will of what people? Isn’t it ridiculous that California, the 8th largest economy in the world, has to subsidize the idiot states such as Texas? Both are larger than most nations. This would be like Ukrainians voting for Germans to give them money, it’s tyrannical.

I’d say that a system that reflects the majority will is better than one that reflects only the will of the central politburo.

China’s system doesn’t reflect the will of the central politburo. They have to make concessions to maintain stability. They are, in that sense, at least slightly moderated by the people.

And you address that by guaranteeing certain inalienable rights (some might even call such a thing a charter, or a constitution) and support those rights through the rule of law

Mob rule isn’t necessary to give people rights.

ummm, I think you’re getting confused. “dad” is the CCP. And you know what, who cares if the CCP rots in a festering hole. The important thing is that PRC citizens get to choose for themselves.

You keep saying “the people get to choose”, “the citizens get to choose”. It’s more like some PRC citizens will choose for themselves and every other PRC citizen. I have faith that Chinese people will be more considerate with their votes, but it’s a fundamentally broken system.

Once the CCP is “out of the way”, so to speak, they will still have structural advantage if they emerge as one political party out of many. You will have to change the mindset of citizens as well, and invest heavily in infrastructure to bring regions up to par with each other. Then once all of this is finally done you have a 50% chance of voting for a total idiot, because no one really knows who the man is behind the teleprompter and spin machines.

Sounds like a lot of pain for nothing. This is ignoring the fact that of course the CCP has different factions, it’s not necessarily one monolithic entity that has a platform and makes empty promises and supports itself above all else (with filibusters, cover-ups, slander, lies) like in a two-party system. The CCP just tries to avoid getting itself killed by the citizens.

that’s unfortunate, since you brought up the analogy of the doctor to begin with.

No. “dad” is a bad analogy, unless you’re willing to accept that if China’s system is “dad”, democracy is mob of thugs, all of them named Bubba.

Even better when the people decide on the laws under which they themselves are governed

How much influence does the average person have on the law? They vote for some guy who is supposed to represent them and they largely create the laws. Most people don’t even read the thousand page proposals either. That and if it does come to a vote, it’s 51% telling the other 49% what to do.

Do you think Westerners would ever accept a world where international law is decided by majority? I’m sure China and India would love that- Westerners would turn up their noses and scream “there’s too damn many of them!”.

If it doesn’t scale, it doesn’t work. Democracy might work for small states, but not for larger ones.

Or rather, the two party system is the natural course democracy will take as it “scales”.

There was a great quote about how the natural course of democracy culminates in the election of a man that is ultimately perfectly representative of the electorate- and in America’s case, they got 8 years of illiterate asshole.

“@ Peter
it would still be Chinese people doing the implementation. Why should Chinese democrats not be able to act in their own national interest?

Because laws would be watered down. The West is very rich in blood money and colonial plunder and can buy (some) key people. The CCP is of course not immune- but a “democratic” country would be much more vulnerable.

It is third world.

As America will be in 50 years.”

Ummm…if the US (and by this I know you probably mean the west) is going to be so ineffective in 50 years….how could it in anyway influence the democracy of China?
Blood money/colonialism….that’s Bob Mugabe’s answer to everything. Heck, even the Iranian Mullahs (they say thanks for the guns and tanks, btw) use this tired old phonographic litany to explain their dire situation (seems God can be omnipotent etc but he just can’t do anything about Iranian economies…)

Quite successful? Do some research. I don’t feel like posting all of the statistics again, just for you to plug your ears and ignore it.”

Oh, go on – break the habit of a lifetime. Give me the references for me to read. No western government pays me my 50 cents so I’m all ears

“I already gave you a list. Nazi Germany was voted in. You will never be able to get around this fact, no matter how many times you plug your ears, deny the facts, revise history and flat-out lie to everyone.”
It was, yes – no one denies that. Only thing was, it then changed the rules – so it is not democracy. Certainly this is a problem – to paraphrase Erdogan, they rode the streetcar called democracy until they reached their stop. By your reasoning, one should have absolute monarchies (the CCP is one) which can only be replaced by…dunno, revolutions?…because poorly implemented checks and balances can be over-ridden.

I’d have no problem living in China, by the way. I lived in Taiwan when it wasn’t free either- and Singapore is a fine place.

It still leaves the million dollar question unanswered: Why is merp still in the evil US of A? Merp has no problem living in China… just that he is still no there…yet. On the other hand, Merp has lots of issues with the evil America… just that he is still… there for some strange reasons.

Quite successful? Do some research. I don’t feel like posting all of the statistics again, just for you to plug your ears and ignore it.

At least Goldman Sachs thinks that India is almost as successful as China as a whole to lump them together as BRIC.

In China’s case, they got 27 years of a narcissistic, ego-inflated and power-hungry crackpot who was willing to sacrifice many lives at the altar of “revolution”. And they are still squandering taxpayers’ money to keep his body from rotting.

“They can listen or not as they choose, but then we move in. If it causes deaths, that’s their own fault. We can’t be soft or merciful toward anti-Party, anti-socialist elements.”

They are, in that sense, at least slightly moderated by the people.

“The Communist Party of China established our government in China at the cost of 40 million people’s lives. Any attempt to steal the control of the government from the Party without exchanging with 40 million lives for it is daydreaming!”

All by the courtesy of Wang Zhen, 4th Vice President of the People’s Republic of China and one of the Party’s “elders”.

Because laws would be watered down. The West is very rich in blood money and colonial plunder and can buy (some) key people. The CCP is of course not immune- but a “democratic” country would be much more vulnerable.

In a one-party system there are fewer people who need to be bought, and when they are they have more power. And they can control the media to prevent you knowing about it.

This claim that Western countries are wealthy due to colonial plunder is nonsense, BTW. It would have been plausible enough when Lenin came up with that thesis, when the wealthiest states all had empires (real empires, not the bullshit “imperialism” category that people try to shoehorn the US into). That day is long past and the old Imperial powers have been eclipsed by states which never had empires in the first place.

It is third world.

As America will be in 50 years.

If America becomes a place where you can be thrown in jail for speaking against the government, or local party bosses or whatever, and people just accept this then yes it will be third world.

Your argument that democracies are inherently weak was used by Hitler and Mussolini, events proved them wrong.

Events proved them wrong? America is in an unassailable (relative to Europe) geographic position. It is infinitely wealthy in terms of material resources. Hitler’s main problem was that while they had a powerful military machine, their underlying ideology was insane- America run by a dictatorship would be immensely powerful. However, there is no reason for the citizens to suffer authoritarianism as realistically speaking, there are no real threats to America’s power. So they can “afford” a softer political system that deludes the citizen.

I don’t know, if you take away the anti-semitism Nazi German was a well-organized nationalist state. It certainly wasn’t insane in the sense of being disfunctional. If America can only “afford” democracy now that it is a superpower, how come it could afford it when it was weak and had to fight for its existence? It seems they also managed to resolve a “splittist” crisis without having to become authoritarian, too.

However you’re missing the key point- the transition- which always paralyzes a nation. This is what America wants, to slow China down so it can be contained.

A transition to another political system is risky. As I mentioned before there are ways the risk could be managed if the will to implement it is there. Taiwan was able to make the transition without having a crisis. Of course the scale is much smaller, but you are wrong that the transition always paralyzes.

Americans will be equally hostile to a democratic China- democracy won’t make the Chinese white and European.

That’s a bit of a slur. If you think everything is explainable in terms of racial struggle then you are probably a racist yourself, after all it would be natural for a racist to think that way.

The two-party system of America is the natural end game of democracy.

Any reason to assume that? The US is an outlier in lots of ways, why not its political system?

US seats are high-stakes affairs. Leveraged interests are simply not as interested in, say Switzerland, as they are in the U.S.

Switzerland is a wealthy country, wouldn’t Swiss elections be high-stakes affairs for the Swiss?

That was just a hypothetical- Uighur land is in Uzbekistan, so they aren’t expropriating any of it.

Do Chinese Uighurs not own any land?

Checks and balances are also not inherent to democracy, they are something separate that could be applied to any system.

True. But their purpose is to weaken branches of government. The CCP believes China will be weak unless it can hold absolute power, so if you ask them to implement them they will probably accuse you of being subservient to the West.

To #157:
“Put your money where your mouth is. I’d have no problem living in China, by the way.”
—well, I already live in a democracy, thanks. You “would” have no problem living in China, you say? And yet you’re not living there now. Funny how that is. Way to show the strength of your convictions. There’s talking the talk, and there’s walking the walk. You’re doing great with the former, and failing miserably with the latter.

Oh, and I imagine Taiwan and Singapore are fantastic places. But China they ain’t.

I’m not touting the “wealth” of democracies; I’m touting the freedoms afforded by democracies to their people. China is wealthier than some democracies (and that statement may still hold true even on a per capita basis). But no one (except maybe geniuses like you) would confuse China under the CCP for a state that espouses freedoms for her people. But you are correct in that it is pretty easy to feel good about one’s circumstances when viewed against the backdrop of the lack of freedoms afforded by the CCP to her people.

““feel for the PRC citizens” then get involved with NGOs here…”
—that is quite ironic, since I’ve come across clones of people like you who would much rather disavow the work of NGOs.

“They sampled urban dwellers period.”
—yes, those would be the folks who live in the big cities as I alluded to. Perhaps you can inform me of the generalizability of a survey that evaluated a population based on a non-random sampling method. It’s not whether the survey was done by Chinese or “foreigners”; the point is that to quote such surveys as a reflection of Chinese sentiment is meaningless since it does not properly survey Chinese sentiment. I can think of better ways to properly evaluate Chinese sentiment…any guesses?

“Even if the USA had the stones…”
—like I said before: (a) imitation is the highest form of flattery, so thanks, but you’re really showing a dearth of originality; (b) we’re talking about China; what do aboriginal peoples in the US have to do with that, dare i ask? Bueller…? Bueller…?

“A change of government almost always destabilizes a nation.”
—ok, that’s a fair point. So don’t do it all at once. Make the change in phases; incorporate a staged plan that produces the requisite change in a gradual fashion so as to minimize any “destabilizing” effects; create test zones to see how such a system would function on actual roll out (ironically, this is something China is actually doing; what the CCP needs is the stones and wherewithal to continue the process). Oh, and let the people decide if they want to pay the potential price for attempting such a change. You can mitigate the effects rather than simply saying no one should bother, all the while not giving people a choice in the matter.

“Because it destabilizes China, which is in the West’s interests.”
—what sort of racial conflict stew have you been sucking on now? How does the “west”‘s creditor becoming “unstable” benefit anybody? And you still haven’t explained how Chinese citizens might somehow feel beholden to bow to the west. That’s a definite head-scratcher.

“A properly enforced rule of law, better laws, (product safety, anti-corruption, building codes) more transparency, the right to publish peer-reviewed and well-sourced publications without fear of persecution”
—well, at least we can agree that that would be a good start. As for what China needs most, I’d happily defer to the Chinese people, rather than the CCP.

“Democracy lovers think that democracy cures all ills.”
—suffice it to say that I don’t know how you’d know what a “democracy lover” thinks. For starters, you don’t strike me as one…apart from the fact that you’re okay with living in a democracy and availing yourself to its privileges.

“Nazi Germany was voted in. You will never be able to get around this fact”
—yes, and you seem to ignore that, by the time German people may have had the desire to vote them out, they no longer could, because by then Nazi Germany was looking a lot like CCP CHina. So the problem isn’t the initial democratic process; it’s the subsequent loss of democratic rights that perpetuated what turned out to be a bad decision. Perhaps you can demonstrate how you would wiggle yourself out of that uncomfortable fact.

BTW, you’ve used “Nazi Germany” a bunch of times. But one item does not a list make. You’ve recycled one assertion, but hardly provided justification for a broad-brush statement like “Democracy is a failure.” I’m a generous guy…so maybe you’d like to try that one again?

“Reflects the will of what people? Isn’t it ridiculous that California…”
—huh? What does this have to do with anything?

“China’s system doesn’t reflect the will of the central politburo. They have to make concessions to maintain stability.”
—then whose will does it reflect, dare I ask? OK, so the politburo makes concessions. But guess what, they get to decide which concessions they will make, when they will make them, and how much they will concede. Or they can decide to make no concessions at all. Bottom line, it’s still the politburo making the decisions, not the people. And that’s the whole entire enchilada in a nutshell for you.

“Mob rule isn’t necessary to give people rights.”
—but you pretty much need a democracy to get you inalienable rights. The “rights” conferred by the CCP to her people are….how shall we say it…flexible.

“It’s more like some PRC citizens will choose for themselves and every other PRC citizen.”
—like I’ve already said, I can think of no system where all 1.3 billion people can have their way on every issue, in every instance, and for them to still function and co-exist within the auspices of one nation. But if your metric is that you want the most people to get their way as possible, I’d say that 51% is a heckuva lot higher number than what an authoritarian system can provide.

“Sounds like a lot of pain for nothing”
—from the CCP’s standpoint, I imagine they would agree with you.

“unless you’re willing to accept that if China’s system is “dad””
—for a system that treats her people like children, and which in your own words is paternalistic, I can’t think of a more fitting moniker to hang on the CCP.

“That and if it does come to a vote, it’s 51% telling the other 49% what to do.”
—ok, so let’s compare to China. How many % run the show, and what percentage has no choice but to follow? The first number is a lot less than 51, and the second number is a lot more than 49. So tell me again, that system is better how?

“a world where international law is decided by majority?”
—except there’s really no entity of “international law”. Relationships between countries are governed by treaties. Such treaties result from negotiation. Population doesn’t directly factor into such negotiations. And I’m not talking about a world democracy. I’m talking about a democracy in China where Chinese citizens are governed according to the majority of their wishes, and not by a bunch of politburo dudes.

I see that you failed to address your earlier statement about “Western mega-corporations which will allow them to set up permanent monopolies…” and providing your basis for such assumptions.

To #158:
“Or rather, the two party system is the natural course democracy will take”
—here’s another thing. You should really broaden your horizons. Democracy is much more than the US of A. Your focus seems to be “2 party system” and “lack of independent parties”. Those apply in the US, perhaps, but not elsewhere. When I speak of “democracy”, it’s the concept, and not the American iteration thereof, that interests me. Similarly, when I wish for a democratic system for Chinese people, I’m not necessarily wishing for a carbon copy of the American system (or any other specific system); I’m merely hopeful that they can avail themselves to a democratic system that serves their own particular and unique circumstances.

Because the US of A is an easy target for some shit throwing that allows merp to divert attention away from what is happening in China. He would have check-mated himself if he were to throw the same shit at the Scandinavian countries for example.

@MikeUmmm…if the US (and by this I know you probably mean the west) is going to be so ineffective in 50 years….how could it in anyway influence the democracy of China?

I wasn’t under the impression you were asking for democracy in China in the long run, but *right now*. However, the US will be able to affect other countries when it is a giant slum in 2050- even a waterlogged corpse can spread disease in rare occasions.

Heck, even the Iranian Mullahs (they say thanks for the guns and tanks, btw) use this tired old phonographic litany to explain their dire situation (seems God can be omnipotent etc but he just can’t do anything about Iranian economies…)

The Iranians are doing better than the Indians. The simple fact is, the West was built on mass murder.

Oh, go on – break the habit of a lifetime. Give me the references for me to read. No western government pays me my 50 cents so I’m all ears

Why would they keep paying you, you’re already bought and sold by the corporate media and other Western agencies.

The same article, from the same Indian scholar (and former economic adviser to the Government of India). The Indians might be highly cultured and generally very good people, but their nation still needs a lot of development.

so it is not democracy.

It was voted in. Then the monsters that were voted in changed the rules- with the complicity of the people. I highly doubt Chinese people would ever vote for such an abomination, but the point is that democracy is not perfect. All it is is another form of tyranny and stupidity.

one should have absolute monarchies (the CCP is one) which can only be replaced by…dunno, revolutions?…because poorly implemented checks and balances can be over-ridden.

No. An improved version of Singapore’s merit system would be preferable. Singapore is way too strict, of course.

So, why aren’t you living in China?

I lived in a poor neighborhood in Taiwan when it was still very poor, and I still visit and live there for several months at a time. This is when I’m not studying.

Still whining about Tiananmen? 2-3,000 people out of millions died there. You have killed 1.2 million Iraqis and counting. Operation Menu claimed the lives of millions of innocent Laotian citizens, and led directly to the rise of Pol Pot.

Hell, Americans supervised the mass murder of 300,000 men, women and children in South Korea and found no issue with it. They even tried to blame it on the North Koreans.

Tiananmen is nothing compared to any of these. Of course you’re going to pander by posting shock photos- you want to see dead Iraqi babies with DU deformities?

@sptwo

Merp has no problem living in China… just that he is still no there…yet

See above. When I’m not studying, I stay in rural China or Taiwan. But enough of your childish ad hominems.

At least Goldman Sachs thinks that India is almost as successful as China as a whole to lump them together as BRIC.

lol, I guess you think Brazil and Russia are the same too.

Wait, i forgot you don’t like to be confronted with factual references, sorry about it.

HAHAHAHA

That’s the most pathetic response I’ve ever seen. Go read the article I posted. The BRIC term is jargon for the uneducated and laymen, it’s no big wonder why you’re so excited by it.

What if the Politburo decides to ignore the people’s opinion? Can they then be removed by constitutional means by the Chinese people?

Was George Bush removed by constitutional means? Nope. And don’t talk about how you voted in Hopenchange either, the same Republicans are still scumming around in government.

Oh, so you are after all, on the side of the “information imperialists” on the freedom of information? You are really a confused kid, aren’t you?

You really are a hooked on phonics kid aren’t you?

If China loves “a world where international law is decided by majority”, she won’t be keeping her veto in the Security Council like other “imperialist” powers such as the US, UK, France and Russia.

Yes because it makes sense that the UK, a nation of 60 million, should have as many votes as China, a nation of 1,300,000,000.

Even the blacks were considered 3/5ths of a human under America’s democracy.

In China’s case, they got 27 years of a narcissistic, ego-inflated and power-hungry crackpot who was willing to sacrifice many lives at the altar of “revolution”. And they are still squandering taxpayers’ money to keep his body from rotting.

Why don’t you whine and moan some more, if you didn’t want Mao to come to power you should have supported the Nationalists.

If you do the math, it will be 9 persons telling the other 1.3billion what to do in China.

Compared to the fat cats in Wall Street. How many of those are there?

Dictatorial rule denies people rights. Period.

Tyranny of the majority denies people rights. Period.

And the European “anchor babies” voted in an African-American as president…

The hallmark of a child. A majority of these European anchor babies voted for McCain. What you saw in 2008 is demographic change- Latinos and blacks tipped the scales in favor of Obama.

The Illinois senator won 43 percent of white voters, 4 percentage points below Carter’s performance in 1976 and equal to what Bill Clinton won in the three-man race of 1996. Republican John McCain won 55 percent of the white vote.

And in the comments section, straight from the mouth of a European anchor baby:

White people who voted for Obama = IDIOTS

@PeterIn a one-party system there are fewer people who need to be bought, and when they are they have more power. And they can control the media to prevent you knowing about it.

At that level they’re too expensive. Why accept small bribes when they can just suck the nation dry if they wanted to in the first place? Besides, if Americans were to propose borrowing money from China to bribe China with the politburo would laugh in their faces. You do that to a local official and he might accept a few dollars to poison his neighbors.

This claim that Western countries are wealthy due to colonial plunder is nonsense, BTW. It would have been plausible enough when Lenin came up with that thesis, when the wealthiest states all had empires (real empires, not the bullshit “imperialism” category that people try to shoehorn the US into). That day is long past and the old Imperial powers have been eclipsed by states which never had empires in the first place.

No it’s not. They are either rich because of colonial plunder, or rich because they traded with their neighbors who are rich because of colonial plunder. You mention that the old Imperial powers have been eclipsed… by whom? The Swedes? Finns? Icelanders? Liechtensteiners? Their nations are too small to project any real power. It’s easier for smaller nations to attain high GDP per capita. But no one really pays attention to the Luxembourger armed forces.

If America becomes a place where you can be thrown in jail for speaking against the government, or local party bosses or whatever, and people just accept this then yes it will be third world.

No, it’s place where the streets are run by crackheads, gangs and murderers. Every institution from the banks to the schools are corrupt and incompetent to the core. Crime rates are astronomical, finances are terrible, infrastructure is crumbling, and the people are so fat that 400,000 die a year to easily preventable disease.

how come it could afford it when it was weak and had to fight for its existence?

You mean that democracy where blacks, women, and natives couldn’t vote, or the even earlier phase where only wealthy land owning white men could vote?

The CCP has something like that already, except women and minority party officials do get a vote. So in that sense China has progressed far beyond developing America.

Oh and I forgot the lovely Jim Crow laws.

Taiwan was able to make the transition without having a crisis. Of course the scale is much smaller, but you are wrong that the transition always paralyzes.

On the contrary, the transition to democracy in Taiwan is not quite complete. The CSB years were an abject failure and it can be said that while the DPP struggled against structural issues, they would not have won the vote without the pan blue split during the first election and CSB’s choreographed shoot-out in the second.

It goes without saying that the CSB circus was a corrupt joke that constrained Taiwan’s progress for nearly a decade. Taiwan is insulated to some degree by political support from Japan and the U.S. With China, there would be no such thing.

That’s a bit of a slur. If you think everything is explainable in terms of racial struggle then you are probably a racist yourself, after all it would be natural for a racist to think that way.

No, it means I’m not delusional. White people have always fundamentally deeply despise the so-called “yellow peril” since around the 18th century. This is something that political correctness has never “corrected”.

Any reason to assume that? The US is an outlier in lots of ways, why not its political system?

It’s an outlier because it’s so large. Democracy does not scale well, I used the example of a “world democracy” to illustrate why I think so.

Switzerland is a wealthy country, wouldn’t Swiss elections be high-stakes affairs for the Swiss?

Yes. And France doesn’t get to vote on the direction of their lives.

Do Chinese Uighurs not own any land?

They have no right to it. Xinjiang has always been Xiongnu, Tibetan, Qiang, etc. The Uighur are late comers who committed a form of ethnic cleansing to make it what it is today, and that much is undeniable.

True. But their purpose is to weaken branches of government. The CCP believes China will be weak unless it can hold absolute power, so if you ask them to implement them they will probably accuse you of being subservient to the West.

I’m sure the Chinese will find a way to moderate them. The CCP at least should be well aware that Chinese citizens have a habit of tossing out bad governments.

@SK Cheungwell, I already live in a democracy, thanks.

Go live in a country that developed as a democracy, thanks. Say, India. Congo, Haiti, Iran and Chile would be options too- oh oops, America destroyed democracy there because they voted for people who were not pro-West. So in a sense, America denied you some freedoms. Shouldn’t you be incensed? At least Haiti is a democracy now, look how flawless their government is, how selflessly it serves the people, how efficient and how grand!

Way to show the strength of your convictions. There’s talking the talk, and there’s walking the walk. You’re doing great with the former, and failing miserably with the latter.

Same to you.

Oh, and I imagine Taiwan and Singapore are fantastic places. But China they ain’t.

Forgetting 228 already? That’s 10 Tiananmen’s right there. BTW I know Taiwanese who have been accused of being Communist sympathizers- and barely escaped the firing squad as a result.

I’m touting the freedoms afforded by democracies to their people.

You’re touting the freedoms! Well I guess the CCP is touting their harmonies. There’s no need to go into specifics, democracy = freedom, CCP = harmony, it’s like pepsi and coke, everyone is satisfied.

that is quite ironic, since I’ve come across clones of people like you who would much rather disavow the work of NGOs.

I’ve come across people like you whose involvement with democracy is limited to forums and interfering with Thai child prostitutes. But that doesn’t mean you’re one of them.

Another thing, I’ve never been to Beijing or Shanghai. Just rural China. I definitely do not think “all of China is Beijing and Shanghai”, like sneering Westerners would like to remind us at every turn.

yes, those would be the folks who live in the big cities as I alluded to.

That is to say, you should be aware that the Indians surveyed were urban dwellers as well. Same goes for the Americans. Unless you want to believe West Virginians are as satisfied as Angelinos…

(a) imitation is the highest form of flattery, so thanks, but you’re really showing a dearth of originality; (b) we’re talking about China; what do aboriginal peoples in the US have to do with that, dare i ask? Bueller…? Bueller…?

The point is obvious- your argument is too broad, to the point where I can easily subvert it and use it against you. What do they have to do with China? It has to do with how democracy is a failure. The Native Americans, and I’m not just being an ass here, have a special right to the territory upon which Europeans built their nation. They are granted democratic rights *on paper*, but various functions of democracy continue to marginalize them to the point of extinction. China has 4-5 dying languages, North America has hundreds. A real piece of work, considering white people have only had 200 years and they’ve already strangled almost every native to death… it’s sickening to even think about.

But hey, if you can live in a trailer and pop out 10 babies a year on a welfare check, your clan has more rights than the people who have lived there for 10,000+ years.

ok, that’s a fair point. So don’t do it all at once. Make the change in phases; incorporate a staged plan that produces the requisite change in a gradual fashion so as to minimize any “destabilizing” effects; create test zones to see how such a system would function on actual roll out (ironically, this is something China is actually doing; what the CCP needs is the stones and wherewithal to continue the process). Oh, and let the people decide if they want to pay the potential price for attempting such a change. You can mitigate the effects rather than simply saying no one should bother, all the while not giving people a choice in the matter.

Isn’t that what they’re doing?

what sort of racial conflict stew have you been sucking on now? How does the “west”’s creditor becoming “unstable” benefit anybody? And you still haven’t explained how Chinese citizens might somehow feel beholden to bow to the west. That’s a definite head-scratcher.

The West is in racial conflict with all of the peoples in the world bar none. Find a large ethnic group and I will give you a laundry list of their grievances with the West. Hell, the West even hates itself.

As to the second part, there is a long, long history of various powers intervening in the affairs other states. They buy out the power structure, or they invade, or incite “regime change”. Which one of these is the most obvious answer to the question of America’s China policy?

well, at least we can agree that that would be a good start. As for what China needs most, I’d happily defer to the Chinese people, rather than the CCP.

To me at least, it’d be ideal if the most knowledgeable and demonstrably competent Chinese were put in specialist positions based on their expertise, moderated by some extent with veto and impeachment power on the part of the people, but something like that is a bit of a pipedream in light of the situation at hand.

apart from the fact that you’re okay with living in a democracy and availing yourself to its privileges.

Lets be realistic here. America was not a real democracy in any sense for the longest time. America overthrew Socialist and Communist leaders, even when they were democratically elected. This is very “dad” like. America is “dad” to those outside of its borders, and a flawed democracy at home- this is why America is so, so far from perfect. And most democratic countries are covered by American economic support or perhaps their missile shield, so no one can pull the “I’m not American” card either.

So the problem isn’t the initial democratic process; it’s the subsequent loss of democratic rights that perpetuated what turned out to be a bad decision.

No, the fact that the German electorate had no issue with voting for a party that based itself on the persecution of minorities is the problem. They should have seen it coming- and many of them did, they just found aggressive foreign policy based in a belief of racial supremacy perfectly suitable to their worldview, like almost all whites of the time did.

I’m a generous guy…so maybe you’d like to try that one again?

Underperforming democracies

1) Haiti. Nominally a democracy supported by US interests, horribly corrupt.
2) India. Slow development. High malnutrition, illiteracy, infant mortality, dysfunctional agriculture, no infrastructure. That’s just the tip of the iceberg… not going into bloody religious and ethnic conflicts and the caste system which the government have not adequately addressed.
3) Russia. Run by gangs, brutally violent, high suicide rates, unstable economy.

Governments/people that were voted in by democracy

1) Nazi Germany.
2) Allende government- deposed by CIA coup
3) Patrice Lumumba- killed by Belgians with American assistance
4) Mohammed Mossadegh- deposed by CIA at behest of British
…and so on

Regimes supported by democracies

1) Saudi Arabia, where people can have their hands chopped off for stealing, homosexuals are executed, and women have absolutely no freedom.

The “rights” conferred by the CCP to her people are….how shall we say it…flexible.

There is a constitution they don’t follow. Just as the Indian government has literally allowed millions of babies to die while they were scratching their heads in parliament.

I can think of no system where all 1.3 billion people can have their way on every issue

Going back to the point on California- yes, there could be, if America were split into 5 or 6 countries. It would be much easier for the people of these new countries to vote in a suitable government. But with all of the racial, religious, class and political tension, it just becomes a game of bribes and demographic padding.

ok, so let’s compare to China. How many % run the show, and what percentage has no choice but to follow? The first number is a lot less than 51, and the second number is a lot more than 49. So tell me again, that system is better how?

No fundamental difference, aside from sentimentality.

except there’s really no entity of “international law”.

Then there should be no entity of “interprovince law”, and it’s justifiable for the CCP to rule the rest of China with an iron fist, just as Americans hold sway over billions with their 5% share of the human population.

I’m talking about a democracy in China where Chinese citizens are governed according to the majority of their wishes

So should voters in Henan tell herders in Tibet what to do? All I’m saying is rejecting one form of tyranny for another does no good to anyone- except China’s competitors.

Those apply in the US, perhaps, but not elsewhere. When I speak of “democracy”, it’s the concept, and not the American iteration thereof, that interests me.

Well there is also Athenian democracy… where 90% of the population couldn’t vote. Or there was Chilean democracy, before America killed the leader they wanted and put a dictator in place. Or there is Japanese democracy, where it took them nearly 5 decades to “vote” for an opposition party.

What kind would be best for China? The Chilean is not possible because America most likely would not be able to assassinate a Chinese leader, but the other two are still options.

To 173:
“Go live in a country that developed as a democracy”
—you mean like Canada? How convenient, cuz that’s where I am now.

“You’re doing great with the former, and failing miserably with the latter.

Same to you.”
—ummm, hardly. I espouse democracy, which is why I live in one. You espouse authoritarianism, yet choose to live in a democracy. You seem a little conflicted, dude, if not hypocritical. So you say you’re studying in the US…surely there are fantastic places where you can study in China, all-the-while lapping up all the privileges that authoritarianism can afford you. It seems you’re in need of a one-way ticket back to the promised land of the CCP.

“CCP is touting their harmonies.”
—yes, absolutely, they are definitely doing that. And as usual, PRC citizens don’t factor in the equation. Such a beautiful system.

“everyone is satisfied”
—well, it’s everyone minus all the folks who aren’t decision-makers in the CCP…how many satisfied people does that leave you with?

“I definitely do not think “all of China is Beijing and Shanghai””
—which is why those surveys alluded to previously are not worth the paper they’re printed on.

“you should be aware that the Indians surveyed…”
—news flash…we’re talking about China.

“I can easily subvert it and use it against you.”
—another news flash. You didn’t subvert an argument; you merely repeated the same phrase while changing a few words…that’s what kids do.

“It has to do with how democracy is a failure.”
—you keep repeating it, yet have repeatedly failed to support your assertion.
“various functions of democracy continue to marginalize them to the point of extinction”
—and those functions would be….?? Like I said before, aboriginal peoples have legitimate grievances, but you’re just throwing words out there with no substantiation. What aspect of the treatment of aboriginal peoples constitutes a failure of democracy? And how does that relate to the viability of democracy as a system of governance in China?

“Isn’t that what they’re doing?”
—like I said, they have some SEZ’s, some trial local elections, and places like HK at least until 2047. That’s a start. But a start doesn’t amount to much if it is not followed up. So where is the plan for rolling it out further? What’s in that plan? Meanwhile, a guy gets 11 years in jail for writing a charter. That speaks more to the CCP’s intent than a couple of quasi-democratic bubbles.

“Find a large ethnic group and I will give you a laundry list of their grievances with the West.”
—even if that were true, sounds like it’s these “large ethnic groups” that are beset with the problem of hating on “the west” for unclear reasons.

“They buy out the power structure, or they invade, or incite “regime change””
—and this sort of thing will entice Chinese people in China to bow to the west? How do you figure that? You don’t have much confidence in the backbone of Chinese people, it seems. How ironic.

“it’d be ideal if the most knowledgeable and demonstrably competent Chinese were put in specialist positions based on their expertise”
—and who, might I ask, should be bestowed with the privilege of determining who these knowledgeable and competent Chinese are? I guess not the Chinese people…I mean, what do they know? Not much, if I am to gather from your POV.

“this is why America is so, so far from perfect.”
—like I said before, I doubt there is a perfect system that perfectly satisfies all people all the time. Democracy in China probably won’t be perfect either. But to me it’d be better for Chinese people.

“They should have seen it coming-”
—so Nazi Germany is the perfect example of why democracy in general is a failure, because Germans weren’t clairvoyant and could not predict the future? Are you kidding me? If, after being voted in, the mechanism still existed for the Nazis to be voted out, they may well have been. But by then, the Nazis had assumed a CCP-style approach to self-preservation.

“Underperforming democracies”
—oddly enough, that doesn’t mean the same thing as “democracy is a failure”. What you’re actually saying is that not all iterations of democracy are a “success” (with success being somewhat haphazardly defined, it seems. For some, it’s lack of corruption, as compared to Haiti; for others, it’s rapid development, as compared to India; for others still, it’s a hot economy, as compared to Russia). You’ve not even come close to establishing that the “concept” of democracy is a failure. Furthermore, in all of your examples, you haven’t established how those shortcomings are the result of “democracy” and not other factors.

“Governments/people that were voted in by democracy” / “Regimes supported by democracies”
—congratulations. At least you have now provided a “list”. Perhaps now you can explain how those examples you “listed” support the assertion that “democracy is a failure”. Baby steps, I guess…baby steps.

“There is a constitution they don’t follow.”
—which makes said constitution as useful as yesterday’s newspaper. And the consequences of the CCP flaunting their own constitution is…the square root of bupkis. And the people’s recourse is…zilch. Could you explain to me again how that constitutes a most-fantastic system?

“yes, there could be, if America were split into 5 or 6 countries.”
— wait a sec, are you saying that China being split up into various entities is the best way to satisfy all 1.3 billion people?

“No fundamental difference, aside from sentimentality.”
—you’re funnier than you look. 9 dudes running the entire show is not fundamentally different than 51% of the population running the show. Your sentiments reflect a interesting understanding of grade-school mathematics… unless, of course, China was inhabited by a grand total of 17 people.

“Then there should be no entity of “interprovince law””
—what on earth are you smoking? Countries interact with one another through treaties, because one country’s law does not supercede another. But when you’re talking about any given country, then of course national laws would apply. What kind of wing-nut argument are you spouting?

“it’s justifiable for the CCP to rule the rest of China with an iron fist”
—huh?!? What is your impediment? If anything, you could argue that the CCP is justified to govern China under the scope of China’s laws. However, that’s not the point of contention. The problem, in yet another nutshell for your benefit, is that the laws used by the CCP are made by the CCP, rather than by the people. That’s why Chinese people would benefit from a democratic system, so that they can determine the laws under which they should live by, without the CCP’s “fatherly advice”.

“So should voters in Henan tell herders in Tibet what to do?”
—that depends on what exactly it is that the voters are telling the herders to do. Because there’s the peoples’ voice, coupled with laws, and rights, and freedoms, in a democracy.

“What kind would be best for China?”
—that would be for Chinese citizens to decide. Let’s hope someday they’re afforded that privilege.

After killing all the natives so they have no political rights, sure. I guess the CCP can kill 98% of the people who oppose them, then they’d have something around Canada’s population with less land mass.

I espouse democracy, which is why I live in one. You espouse authoritarianism, yet choose to live in a democracy.

You espouse democracy for developing countries. I do not- that’s the difference. Canada was not a real democracy while it was “getting rich”. It either relied on the US or on stealing other people’s land.

I guess China can kill 98% of the population and then have a vote- oh wait, that would be ridiculous. Like Canada.

yes, absolutely, they are definitely doing that. And as usual, PRC citizens don’t factor in the equation. Such a beautiful system.

“The people” don’t matter in Canada either. The majority does.

You didn’t subvert an argument; you merely repeated the same phrase while changing a few words…that’s what kids do.

No, what kids do is repeat their brainwashing. The people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people……. the people…. the people…….. the people… brains… the people…

you keep repeating it, yet have repeatedly failed to support your assertion.

So you think Nazi Germany’s rise to power is not an example of failure, good to know I guess.

and this sort of thing will entice Chinese people in China to bow to the west? How do you figure that? You don’t have much confidence in the backbone of Chinese people, it seems. How ironic.

Work on your reading comprehension.

and who, might I ask, should be bestowed with the privilege of determining who these knowledgeable and competent Chinese are? I guess not the Chinese people…I mean, what do they know? Not much, if I am to gather from your POV.

Not a mob.

so Nazi Germany is the perfect example of why democracy in general is a failure, because Germans weren’t clairvoyant and could not predict the future?

No, because as an electorate, they were evil and voted for evil. Again, the point is that democracy is not perfect. It’s not just not perfect, it’s a failure.

For some, it’s lack of corruption, as compared to Haiti; for others, it’s rapid development, as compared to India; for others still, it’s a hot economy, as compared to Russia). You’ve not even come close to establishing that the “concept” of democracy is a failure.

All I’m saying is that all of these nations border on being failed states. It should be pretty obvious to you. There is a large list of problems because- surprise surprise, democracy fails at fixing even a single one of them across all of these countries.

support the assertion that “democracy is a failure”.

Go move to Haiti or Saudi Arabia then, if you think they’re such flawless countries.

wait a sec, are you saying that China being split up into various entities is the best way to satisfy all 1.3 billion people?

If it were a democracy.

What kind of wing-nut argument are you spouting?

Learn how to read. The point, obviously, was that who is determined fit for a “right to vote” is one way in which democracies screw the people they are supposed to be responsible. There is no reason to see Texas voting for tax regulations in California as any different from French voting to subsidize themselves with Swiss money. There is no reason why European anchor babies should be able to vote Real Americans into extinction.

So on and so forth… but you will say “the people… the people… the people./…. the people… the people……….. the people………”

is that the laws used by the CCP are made by the CCP, rather than by the people

the people….. the people….. the people……….. I’ve already explained, democracy is not rule by the people. WHO is the people? Illegal squatters like Europeans? Trailer park Sue and her litter of 23 inbreds? A larger state forcing its will on smaller ones?

hat depends on what exactly it is that the voters are telling the herders to do. Because there’s the peoples’ voice, coupled with laws, and rights, and freedoms, in a democracy.

“The people’s voice” (i.e the mob) IS democracy. You don’t get to dress it up and sell it in package just because of your misunderstanding of the concept.

So yes, it would be perfectly democratic for Henan to vote that all Tibetans should walk on their hands and eat only every third Tuesday. It would also be perfectly democratic, according to you, to essentially assign 90% of the citizenry to sub-human status deprived of any sort of legal rights (slaves, illegal aliens, women, children, men who don’t own land)

—that would be for Chinese citizens to decide. Let’s hope someday they’re afforded that privilege.

So yes, it would be perfectly democratic for Henan to vote that all Tibetans should walk on their hands and eat only every third Tuesday. It would also be perfectly democratic, according to you, to essentially assign 90% of the citizenry to sub-human status deprived of any sort of legal rights (slaves, illegal aliens, women, children, men who don’t own land)

Under that thinking, all colonizers should be welcome as liberators if they improve the people’s standard of living, whether they are wanted there or not. There’s no doubt the Chinese have improved Tibet’s infrastructure and raise the living standard. But if they aren’t wanted there, and if they are seen as fazing out local culture, then you have a serious problem. “But we’re only doing it for their sake. They should be grateful.” That’s similar to America’s attitude in Iraq, and in both cases the results were a huge gaping wound.

And about Canadians killing all the natives – can you ever be anything but a one-trick pony?

At that level they’re too expensive. Why accept small bribes when they can just suck the nation dry if they wanted to in the first place?

You have a point there, many of the top CCP and their families seem to be incredibly wealthy. More than is good for the system. The CCP doesn’t seem to be able to bring corruption under control. That is a fairly serious threat to China IMO.

No it’s not. They are either rich because of colonial plunder, or rich because they traded with their neighbors who are rich because of colonial plunder. You mention that the old Imperial powers have been eclipsed… by whom? The Swedes? Finns? Icelanders? Liechtensteiners? Their nations are too small to project any real power. It’s easier for smaller nations to attain high GDP per capita. But no one really pays attention to the Luxembourger armed forces.

I wasn’t asking about their armed forces. How about Japan and Singapore, both very wealthy and empire-less. You’re not going to claim that Japan is still living on plunder from Taiwan are you? While Taiwan is rich (where’s their empire?) and Japan has had to recover from losing a major war?
Face it, Marx and Lenin where wrong. About everything, not just economics. The US, Britain, Germany and France are wealthy for the same reason that empire-less Hong Kong and Japan are wealthy. Obviously access to an empire makes a difference somewhere, for a while perhaps. How much? I’ve heard it suggested that the British Empire was a net loss over time. The BE certainly doesn’t explain why Britain is still wealthy.

how come it could afford it when it was weak and had to fight for its existence?

You mean that democracy where blacks, women, and natives couldn’t vote, or the even earlier phase where only wealthy land owning white men could vote?

Yes. Even without a universal franchise, wouldn’t the weaknesses of democracy have brought them down? They were facing an empire’s armed forces.
Or do you mean that a democracy can be stronger if it restricts the franchise to the rich, or certain ethnic groups?

The CCP has something like that already, except women and minority party officials do get a vote. So in that sense China has progressed far beyond developing America.

They get a vote, for one party and one ideology.

Taiwan was able to make the transition without having a crisis. Of course the scale is much smaller, but you are wrong that the transition always paralyzes.

On the contrary, the transition to democracy in Taiwan is not quite complete. The CSB years were an abject failure and it can be said that while the DPP struggled against structural issues, they would not have won the vote without the pan blue split during the first election and CSB’s choreographed shoot-out in the second.

It goes without saying that the CSB circus was a corrupt joke that constrained Taiwan’s progress for nearly a decade. Taiwan is insulated to some degree by political support from Japan and the U.S. With China, there would be no such thing.

Nevertheless, there is still a Taiwan. I don’t think Japan or the US saved them from collapse.

That’s a bit of a slur. If you think everything is explainable in terms of racial struggle then you are probably a racist yourself, after all it would be natural for a racist to think that way.

No, it means I’m not delusional. White people have always fundamentally deeply despise the so-called “yellow peril” since around the 18th century. This is something that political correctness has never “corrected”.

Right, so it’s “delusional” to deny that there is a racial struggle between white people and yellow people? That would have to be a racialist mentality. If it were true that there is this fundamental struggle between races then presumably yellow people ought to have their own “white peril” ideology to confront their racial enemy with. Do you also believe this?
If so, where do black people fit into the conflict, are they allies or enemies?
What about mixed race people?

Flip, you should stick to class struggle. It’s bullshit but it’s marginally more respectable.

Do Chinese Uighurs not own any land?

They have no right to it.

You are up-front about some things. In the talk earlier about all the wealthy nations becoming that way through plunder I did wonder if you’d allowed an exception for China.

Xinjiang has always been Xiongnu, Tibetan, Qiang, etc. The Uighur are late comers who committed a form of ethnic cleansing to make it what it is today, and that much is undeniable.

So if Uighurs accuse Han of ethnic cleansing, you will be able to say that what you are doing is no worse than what they have already done? It has been said before you know. By the same people who said things like this:
“But we brought them science! Modern manufacturing! We built them railways!”

True. But their purpose is to weaken branches of government. The CCP believes China will be weak unless it can hold absolute power, so if you ask them to implement them they will probably accuse you of being subservient to the West.

I’m sure the Chinese will find a way to moderate them. The CCP at least should be well aware that Chinese citizens have a habit of tossing out bad governments.

So you think Nazi Germany’s rise to power is not an example of failure, good to know I guess.

Nazi Germany’s rise to power was a failure of democracy. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, which occurred during peacetime but inflicted more damage on China than the Imperial Japanese Army, were failures of the CCP.

To #176:
“I guess the CCP can kill 98% of the people who oppose them”
—and it would still be an authoritarian state…not sure how that changes anything.

“You espouse democracy for developing countries.”
—again, I’m only talking about CHina. And I espouse democracy if Chinese people want it. The problem is they have no choice in the matter at this time.

““The people” don’t matter in Canada either. The majority does.”
—dude, we’ve been through this before. 51% is better than your 9 favourite dudes telling 1.3 billion what to do. Well, i guess you prefer the latter…as long as you’re not part of that 1.3 billion. Like I say…beautiful system that you defend yet choose not to live under.

“Work on your reading comprehension.”
—dude, if your defense for your ridiculous assertions is simply for me to better understand what you wrote (which sounded like garbage the first time around) rather than to offer up an argument, that’s pretty weak. To each his own.

“The people”
—well you know, they are the building blocks of society. So yeah, I place my priority with them; you’d rather place the CCP first…good on ya. Maybe someday you’ll actually sample that which you preach.

“So you think Nazi Germany’s rise to power is not an example of failure”
—gosh, if people like you could only debate what I said, rather than what you hoped I said, that would be grand. Too much to ask, I guess. In hindsight, the Germans may have made a mistake with their exercise of democracy. And you know what, with choice needs to come the capacity to shoulder the consequences. The German people screwed up, and I’d say they paid dearly for it. Perhaps you can explain how a poor choice constitutes a failure of the entire concept of democracy. You take your time. And again, if you can try to not ignore the fact that the reason they screwed up was because the Nazis were elected democratically but subsequently clung to power in the most authoritarian of manners (a la CCP as previously suggested), that would also be grand.

“Not a mob.”
—first you suggest that CHinese people would “bow to the west”. Then you suggest that, left to democratic devices, they would be a mob. Man, you are sure not showing a lot of love for the capacity of Chinese people.

“they were evil and voted for evil.”
—ok, borderline racist remarks smearing all Germans of 1930′s Germany aside, even if your assertion is true, that’s an indictment against Germans and not of democracy. You seem to have difficulty with that distinction.

“the point is that democracy is not perfect.”
—I would agree.
“It’s not just not perfect, it’s a failure.”
—once again, you’re repeating yourself. The question, which I’ve already asked several times to no avail, is: “how is the concept of democracy a failure”. Like I said, in hindsight, the election of the Nazis may be an EXAMPLE of a failure of ONE ITERATION of democracy. But how is that an indictment of the concept or principle thereof?

“all of these nations border on being failed states.”
—I guess it depends on what metric you use to define successful states. But even if you assert that your “list” is of “failed states”, how does that relate to “democracy is a failure”? When a state that happens to have a democratic system of governance is beset with corruption, slow development, or poor economy, that’s purely and entirely the fault of the system of governance? OK, so how about all those states that aren’t “failed” by your metrics? Those must therefore be examples of “democracy is a success”. So if in some places “democracy is a failure” yet in others “democracy is a success”, it seems the determinating factor isn’t even the concept of democracy at all. Where does that leave your initial baseless assertion, I wonder? Do I need to draw out the logic for you with lines and arrows?

“if you think they’re such flawless countries.”
—pardon my asking, but could you please direct me to where I said those were “flawless” countries? Gosh, is it so hard to debate what I said, rather than trying to debate something I didn’t say (though I suppose that makes it easier for you).

“If it were a democracy.”
— good grief. So if China were to become a democracy, she would have to be split up. So for anyone who doesn’t want to see China chopped into little sections, by god don’t give a second thought to this whole democracy business…. your “logic” makes Bill O’Reilly look like Einstein.

“The point, obviously, was that who is determined fit for a “right to vote” is one way in which democracies screw the people they are supposed to be responsible.”
(a): does this sentence actually mean something? Democracies screw the people they govern by giving their citizens the right to vote? How do they do this, pray tell. You are not just a wing-nut…you are a stripped wing-nut.
(b): how does your statement relate to this (“Then there should be no entity of “interprovince law””)?

“There is no reason to see Texas voting for tax regulations in California”
—now what on earth are you talking about? If Texans are voting on tax legislation that affects Californians, presumably you’re talking about federal tax laws. That’s what happens when you’re in the same union. If you’re talking about Texans voting on California state tax legislation, since when do they do that? Seriously, dude, what is your impediment?

“democracy is not rule by the people. WHO is the people?”
—the citizens of the state. You are more dense than even I had initially thought.

“misunderstanding of the concept.”
—listen, if you don’t think the rule of law, individual rights, individual freedoms are part of the core of a functioning democracy…well, that’s no surprise, I guess. But even at your basic and warped level, 51% is a heckuva lot better than 9 dudes (I’ll leave you to figure out the percentage of 9 in 1.3 billion).

“it would be perfectly democratic for Henan to vote that all Tibetans…”
— like I said, you are a stripped wing-nut. You and the CCP really do deserve each other. At least I’m hopeful that most Chinese people aren’t as apparently challenged as you seem to be.

“They already were. So you want another revolution?”
—again, maybe the CHinese people can be allowed a choice more than once in a lifetime? You must write slogans or something. The only way China will ever have a chance to engage in a democratic form of governance is through revolution. Come to think of it, I suppose there’s some truth to that, cuz god knows the CCP is only looking out for number one and would never willingly relinquish power to (gasp) common PRC citizens.

I certainly hope that your mode of “thinking” is one of a kind. And I mean that in the most literal way.

On the contrary, the transition to democracy in Taiwan is not quite complete. The CSB years were an abject failure and it can be said that while the DPP struggled against structural issues, they would not have won the vote without the pan blue split during the first election and CSB’s choreographed shoot-out in the second.

It goes without saying that the CSB circus was a corrupt joke that constrained Taiwan’s progress for nearly a decade. Taiwan is insulated to some degree by political support from Japan and the U.S. With China, there would be no such thing.

If not for democracy with its term limits, a corrupt president like Chen Shui Bian would have made himself president for life like Chiang Kai-shek.

All i can say is that your attitude is hubris at its pinnacle. The deteriorating dependency ratio may be the thing that could break China’s back if the One Child Policy is not fine-tuned in time. It can be heading for a demographic nightmare if it is not careful.

The question is: Why don’t the CCP follow something they have come up with?

And don’t evade the question by telling us that XYZ country also don’t follow their constitution such that it make it alright for the CCP not do so too. That’s an old trick that will not get you anywhere.

1) Haiti. Nominally a democracy supported by US interests, horribly corrupt.
2) India. Slow development. High malnutrition, illiteracy, infant mortality, dysfunctional agriculture, no infrastructure. That’s just the tip of the iceberg… not going into bloody religious and ethnic conflicts and the caste system which the government have not adequately addressed.
3) Russia. Run by gangs, brutally violent, high suicide rates, unstable economy.

If that is your reasoning, China will be doomed. It clear that you are choosing to avoid comment 154. Merp is running away and away from comment 154.

Spare the German electorate. Even if you do assume that the 43.9% who voted for Hitler are “evil”, how about the 56.1% who actually didn’t vote for Hitler in 1933? Are they also “evil”?

“Although it was extremely difficult for the opposition parties to campaign properly, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party still failed to win an overall victory in the election on 5th March, 1933. The NSDAP received 43.9% of the vote and only 288 seats out of the available 647.”

In China’s case, they got 27 years of a narcissistic, ego-inflated and power-hungry crackpot who was willing to sacrifice many lives at the altar of “revolution”. And they are still squandering taxpayers’ money to keep his body from rotting.

Why don’t you whine and moan some more, if you didn’t want Mao to come to power you should have supported the Nationalists.

You still didn’t answer why the CCP regime, which is one made up of “a few thousand instead of 100 million idiots” actually allowed the above to happen.

Come to think about it, this is not really credible unless you are 1) A Taiwanese defector to the mainland or 2) A PRC defector to Taiwan (but this will be quite impossible given merp’s staunch defence of the CCP ).

Why? Because martial law in Taiwan wasn’t even lifted until 1987. Otherwise merp would have to hire human traffickers to transport him from Taiwan to the mainland. But i am quite certain that the human traffickers must be astonished at the destination of merp’s request.

@BRICYou have a point there, many of the top CCP and their families seem to be incredibly wealthy. More than is good for the system. The CCP doesn’t seem to be able to bring corruption under control. That is a fairly serious threat to China IMO.

To mention the BRIC’s again, China is the least corrupt- and also the least democratic, according to Western NGOs.

As to the “wealth” of CCP members, as far as non-Chinese NGOs know the wealth gap (not income gap) is lower than in the other BRICs- and America.

How about Japan and Singapore, both very wealthy and empire-less. You’re not going to claim that Japan is still living on plunder from Taiwan are you? While Taiwan is rich (where’s their empire?) and Japan has had to recover from losing a major war?

Japan was given privileged access to American IPR, they received a lot of FDI from the outside, and they were covered under American military protection. America gave them a limited amount of aid after WW2 as well- but they of course gave more to Europe.

China received no aid nor reparations from anyone, and never has in its entire history. ODA from Japan must be paid back, and it is low-cost (though efficiently and effectively placed).

And yet China is now the fastest growing economy in the recorded history of mankind.

The US, Britain, Germany and France are wealthy for the same reason that empire-less Hong Kong and Japan are wealthy.

No, they’re not. The US is wealthy because of colonial plunder. Britain, Germany and France are wealthy because of US patronage (after WW2) and colonial plunder (before WW2 and during the Cold War). Hong Kong and Japan are wealthy because of the merit and the hard work of their people- as well as Western market access (read: trading with genocidal mass murderers) and to some extent patronage.

I didn’t say Communism wasn’t a failure either. It is- however, even non-Communist countries can be “poorer” than say America. That’s because they don’t steal as much.

How much? I’ve heard it suggested that the British Empire was a net loss over time.

I’ve also heard it suggested that the Emperor of Mars likes purple skittles. That’s pure nonsense btw- it may have started to be a drain towards the end (because of strained supply lines during wars and rebellions), but before then it was very profitable, at the expense of millions of lives. The simple fact is that Britain would not have been able to maintain its position relative to other European powers without its colonies. It used this financial position to its own advantage through the years, regardless of WW2.

Yes. Even without a universal franchise, wouldn’t the weaknesses of democracy have brought them down? They were facing an empire’s armed forces.
Or do you mean that a democracy can be stronger if it restricts the franchise to the rich, or certain ethnic groups?

They weren’t facing the undivided attention of Britain. Britain had several other conflicts going on- and as a result these other powers aided revolutionary America to some extent.

That, and Britain is too far from America to mount a constant assault at that time. All other things equal, a dictatorship is stronger, generally at the expense of the people. A democratic agrarian backwater like America would have been crushed by the full might of Britain at the time if they shared a land border.

They get a vote, for one party and one ideology.

It’s one party, but there isn’t really an ideology anymore. Obviously, they have tossed many tenets of Communism in the trash.

Nevertheless, there is still a Taiwan. I don’t think Japan or the US saved them from collapse.

You think Taiwan would have survived if they had CSB and not Chiang Kai-Shek in the 50s? That’s the point- Taiwan transitioned when the GDP/capita was roughly 15,000 (PPP).

Right, so it’s “delusional” to deny that there is a racial struggle between white people and yellow people? That would have to be a racialist mentality. If it were true that there is this fundamental struggle between races then presumably yellow people ought to have their own “white peril” ideology to confront their racial enemy with. Do you also believe this?
If so, where do black people fit into the conflict, are they allies or enemies?
What about mixed race people?

There is a fundamental “racial struggle” with the West, because the West insists on racial and religious conflict. Ethnic conflict is commonplace, it’s just that the West does it on an industrial scale.

Flip, you should stick to class struggle. It’s bullshit but it’s marginally more respectable.

It’s less of an issue now. What whites are waging today is racial warfare by proxy. You have the propaganda apparatus (most Western media) and all other instruments of genocide mobilizing- see how American mass media behaved before the illegal Invasion of Iraq.

So if Uighurs accuse Han of ethnic cleansing, you will be able to say that what you are doing is no worse than what they have already done? It has been said before you know. By the same people who said things like this:

Nope. Removing an invader from land they do not own, peacefully, is not ethnic cleansing. It’s simply justice.

but inflicted more damage on China than the Imperial Japanese Army, were failures of the CCP.

You’re going to have to source that. The Japanese invasions *killed* 17-25 million people. That’s not counting all the people who died because they bombed China’s infrastructure. Railroads, communication lines, industrial zones, were razed to the ground, and many people starved or lived in misery as a result.

Then again George Bush did more damage to America than the attacks on Pearl Harbor, so I don’t see what point you’re trying to make.

So…from Taiwan, eh? Spent time in Northern China? What, holidays? You have never lived in China then…PRC China, not ROC China. And enjoying the west too…

Couple of questions – are you Taiwanese or is your family recent immigrants? WHy not study in China? Were you bullied for being Chinese in the west? I ask this last question for your sudden use of the term “whites” (and this after you chided me for using the term “Yellow Man’s Burden”….not copying me, are you?) which you use as an insult. You kow racism is one method used by Nazi Germany (your favourites…but then you also like the CCP so that figures) to maintain power….

Rest of your arguments not worth going over – covered above and by my reckoning, you’re in stalemate. Never mind…when you’ve done your studies, travel a bit. Got to Europe…get a feeling for what westerners are like becuase you sure as shit haven’t a clue Like I hadn’t before I met my wife about Chinese. A humbling experience, you’ll find…and a good one.

@S.K Cheungand it would still be an authoritarian state…not sure how that changes anything.

They can kill 98% of the people who would oppose them in an election. Then make it into a democracy, where people they don’t like aren’t allowed to vote. After 100 years of development under this system you’d probably find the place to your liking too.

again, I’m only talking about CHina. And I espouse democracy if Chinese people want it. The problem is they have no choice in the matter at this time.

No one has had a choice at a similar point of development, including myself and my family. It can wait- to when China’s GDP per capita is roughly 15,000-20,000

Rather, it’s a few million telling everyone else what to do. And no, it’s not much better or worse.

well you know, they are the building blocks of society. So yeah, I place my priority with them; you’d rather place the CCP first…good on ya. Maybe someday you’ll actually sample that which you preach.

Yes because we all know Taiwan was democratic in the 80s. Yes, I have “sampled” it. Maybe you should sample what you preach and be ethnically cleansed/herded into an Indian reservation, because the definition of “the people” or even “a person” (why should untermensch and women be allowed to vote?) changes depending on how the established powers in so-called democracies interpret things.

if people like you could only debate what I said, rather than what you hoped I said, that would be grand.

Same to you.

and I’d say they paid dearly for it

Not as much as Poland did. The only reason why they paid dearly, and not with “everything” (i.e the dissolution of the German people) is because the allied powers had sympathy for them. Do you think a China that messes up so badly will have sympathy from the imperialist powers? Yeah right. Even when China was run by the ROC, no one cared to help them. Too bad for you I guess.

And again, if you can try to not ignore the fact that the reason they screwed up was because the Nazis were elected democratically but subsequently clung to power in the most authoritarian of manners (a la CCP as previously suggested), that would also be grand.

The simple point is that China cannot afford to fuck up. A crapshoot with democracy is no better than the current government, which is at least not a complete failure.

first you suggest that CHinese people would “bow to the west”. Then you suggest that, left to democratic devices, they would be a mob. Man, you are sure not showing a lot of love for the capacity of Chinese people.

“The Chinese people” won’t. A particularly brainwashed or bribe segment of the Chinese population might outvote the rest, however.

ok, borderline racist remarks smearing all Germans of 1930’s Germany aside, even if your assertion is true, that’s an indictment against Germans and not of democracy. You seem to have difficulty with that distinction.

Get real, white supremacist thinking and Nordicism was greatly accepted by America, Britain, Germany etc. They paid a heavy price for it, though I doubt many lessons have been learn.

Like I said, in hindsight, the election of the Nazis may be an EXAMPLE of a failure of ONE ITERATION of democracy. But how is that an indictment of the concept or principle thereof?

Where are Rome and the Athenian Empire today? Ancient Sparta (where 90% of the population was denied basic rights)? Where are the Iroquois?

And in 50 years America will be a declining backwater, while Britain will be totally irrelevant.

I’m going to guess you’re going to say none of these are “real” democracies, in which case the CCP will say Mao’s regime was not “real” Communism either. Both are so perfect, though.

Those must therefore be examples of “democracy is a success”. So if in some places “democracy is a failure” yet in others “democracy is a success”,

The only places where democracy is a “success” are places where opposition “peoples” were exterminated or systematically denied their rights due to arbitray definitions (Athens, Sparta, Canada, United States), places that are so small that they are insulated by political allies and neighbors (Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland) or places that were not democratic (or lapsed into authoritarianism) when times were hard/during development (major European powers).

Even then many of these countries are crumbling due to various factors.

good grief. So if China were to become a democracy, she would have to be split up. So for anyone who doesn’t want to see China chopped into little sections, by god don’t give a second thought to this whole democracy business…. your “logic” makes Bill O’Reilly look like Einstein.

No. It means that the fate of minority groups is not clear if China becomes a democracy without fracturing into smaller states. Right now the CCP has policy in place to increase their relative populations and preserve their cultures, a “democratic, Westernized culture” where the majority is encouraged to “fuck the world brown” would very quickly undermine much of East Asia’s cultural heritage. That, and of course there’s no telling how a 91% majority will vote in the context of rival ethnic interests.

(a): does this sentence actually mean something? Democracies screw the people they govern by giving their citizens the right to vote? How do they do this, pray tell. You are not just a wing-nut…you are a stripped wing-nut.
(b): how does your statement relate to this (“Then there should be no entity of “interprovince law””)?

a) no, again, I was very clear. The government screws (some) people it is responsible for- to make an example, India under Britain- by not giving certain people under their “care” a right to vote. This is why the American Revolution happened. The fact that some idiot in Alabama can vote in the 2012 election is small comfort to Iraqis (again, the responsibility for their well-being is in American hands) who are much more constricted in their ability to decide their own fate.
b) because country to country, province to province, village to village, ethnic group to ethnic group interests often conflict, even within a nation. simply allowing a “majority vote” to represent the interests of an arbitrarily lumped-together “people” without regard to demographics is idiotic compared to taking the natural path which is of course for smaller groups to split off from larger political entities that are voting in conflict with your interests.

In that regard it would arguably be best for California and New York to declare independence from America so they would no longer have to subsidize republican states that are mooching off their tax dollars. Would that be tolerated? If not, that just proves the point about tyranny of the majority and how one province of China could screw another simply by having more babies.

the citizens of the state. You are more dense than even I had initially thought.

So in order for the established powers to maintain their position relative to “everyone else” they can stretch and bend the line between citizen and subhuman, just as Americans did, just as Canadians did, just as Athenians did, just as Spartans did. Thanks for finally arriving at the very obvious point, perhaps you’re not as clueless as I thought.

But even at your basic and warped level, 51% is a heckuva lot better than 9 dudes (I’ll leave you to figure out the percentage of 9 in 1.3 billion).

It depends on who the “9 dudes” are, and I’m sure the 9 dudes of the politburo are less politically monolithic than either Republicans or Democrats. I was being generous the whole time, but it’s time to take the gloves off- in America and Canada, you have millions of uneducated anchor babies voting against the basic rights of the people who, in all fairness, are the only ones who deserve to be called real Americans or real Canadians.

The CCP could kill 98% of their potential political enemies, then restrict the vote to only land-owning Chinese of a certain genetic make-up. Then they would only allow immigration of those who are like-minded and of a similar ethnic background. Then after 50 years they’d pretend to feel guilty and allow limited rights for the minority (i.e something inherent in democracy), declare itself a paraside, and then you could move there and feel smug.

Really, grow up and get over yourself.

like I said, you are a stripped wing-nut. You and the CCP really do deserve each other. At least I’m hopeful that most Chinese people aren’t as apparently challenged as you seem to be.

I hope the Chinese people vote to turn Canada into a crater in 2050, wouldn’t that be ironic? I’d dig around for your corpse and give you a proper burial, out of the kindness of my heart.

again, maybe the CHinese people can be allowed a choice more than once in a lifetime?

Well, if China democratizes in 10-20 years in Taiwan’s footsteps that will be at least 2 choices in a lifetime.

cuz god knows the CCP is only looking out for number one

Oh so you’re God know, I guess that explains why you’re so certain democracy will turn China into a flawless paradise.

Another quick question, Merp. You have a Chinese passport? Any problems getting a visa from the US? I ask because I shared an office with a Taiwanese lass. Oooooh, she used to come back on the verge of tears, spitting tacks about the CCP stooge in the Chinese visa office in Auckland. They’d re-write her appication, crossing out ROC and replacing it with PRC (kinda stupid, eh? I mean, if it was PRC..why would they want her to get a visa? Though I guess the NZ$160 didn’t hurt…). Yep, she was another one that really wouldn’t like your scenario – she was Taiwanese, not Chinese (that makes two women from Taiwan who tell me that – odd, eh?).
Tell me, Merp….if a plebiscite was held in Taiwan this year….what would the answer be? Kill off the ROC and end the civil war by becoming PRC? Or…? With references, please – opinions are like farts – everyone likes to share them but ….

Couple of questions – are you Taiwanese or is your family recent immigrants?

Yes, I’m Taiwanese.

WHy not study in China?

Why does China need Taiwanese students in its schools, when it already is overflowing with good students?

Were you bullied for being Chinese in the west?

Plenty of people have physically attacked me for my race- but all of them ended up getting beaten down by me. So yes and no, they tried but failed miserably.

I ask this last question for your sudden use of the term “whites” (and this after you chided me for using the term “Yellow Man’s Burden”….not copying me, are you?) which you use as an insult.

I use “whites” when whites try to debase China’s history by making those sarcastic “5000 years” remarks (it’s more like 10,000 years, if you consider the joke we call the European neolithic to be “civilization”)

You kow racism is one method used by Nazi Germany (your favourites…but then you also like the CCP so that figures) to maintain power….

No such thing as racism against whites.

Not going to read sp’s posts until he stops being so sore that he has to post in 15 separate comments.

They’d re-write her appication, crossing out ROC and replacing it with PRC (kinda stupid, eh? I mean, if it was PRC..why would they want her to get a visa? Though I guess the NZ$160 didn’t hurt…). Yep, she was another one that really wouldn’t like your scenario – she was Taiwanese, not Chinese (that makes two women from Taiwan who tell me that – odd, eh?).
Tell me, Merp….if a plebiscite was held in Taiwan this year….what would the answer be? Kill off the ROC and end the civil war by becoming PRC? Or…? With references, please – opinions are like farts – everyone likes to share them but ….

If I knew your friend was such a hysterical whiner I would have crossed out ROC and put in PRC too, or maybe in Engrish: Peopre Repubricaning the China’r.

“Yes because working with NGOs in rural Northern China is just like vacationing on a tropical island.”
Doubt it. But some people like that sort of thing. Working holiday, helping others etc, etc, etc. Don’t be so touchy.

“No such thing as racism against whites.”
You are doing it – ergo, there is.

“I use “whites” when whites try to debase China’s history by making those sarcastic “5000 years” remarks (it’s more like 10,000 years, if you consider the joke we call the European neolithic to be “civilization”)”
Touchy, touchy. European neolithic, eh? Very interesting time. Just before European discovered metalworking (I think we exported that to China ). And writing too…and cities.http://www.greek-thesaurus.gr/Neolithic-civilization-Greece.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria_tablets
Of course, you being a red neck racist, you don’t like the sound of that Living in the US has taught you well…

“If I knew your friend was such a hysterical whiner I would have crossed out ROC and put in PRC too, or maybe in Engrish: Peopre Repubricaning the China’r.”
Of course, you are a stooge of the CCP – stands to reason And I don’t think you are Taiwanese.

You think Taiwan would have survived if they had CSB and not Chiang Kai-Shek in the 50s? That’s the point- Taiwan transitioned when the GDP/capita was roughly 15,000 (PPP).

Haha, you claimed you lived in Taiwan..obviously either you are plain ignorant or you don’t live in Taiwan at all. Chiang Kai-shek was inept when it comes to managing the economy. If there is anyone to credit for Taiwan’s economic success, it will be Li Kwoh-ting, not Chiang Kai-shek.

“The Greek neolithic was borrowed heavily from Mesopotamia and Egypt.”
And vice versa. Metal ores are plentiful in the Balkans. Of course, in neolithic terms, we can’t talk about Greeks, Egyptians, etc in modern terms. It was two way traffic – in both technology and people (the Y chromosome shows that there was a diffusion from the Near East into Europe, while the mtDNA shows that the incomers were taking local women…the mtDNA, as I recall, appears to go back further than the neolithic. All to do with farming…)

“It doesn’t matter what you think- many Taiwanese and Hong Kongers are increasingly skeptical of the West’s manufactured anti-Chinese line as of late.”
That’s true – I don’t care if you are Taiwanese or Mainlander, taiwanese from way back or some 1948 expat that came in with Chiang Kai Shek. However, it reflects on you and your comments.
As for the Honkers et al – I work with them. Many don’t actually share your views, though I guess some do. They are proud of being Chinese but I can’t see them happy with the CCP. There is a difference, I’m sure you’ll agree. All the ones I know don’t seem in a hurry to lose their British passports….
I do agree about the media in the west (and India – though they are preoccupied with Chinese incursions into northern India and into Nepal) about the way China is portrayed. I guess it is jealousy and shadefreude – it doesn’t help that no one can see how China has managed to escape the Great Recession so well. Being opaque doesn’t help as it tends to suggest that there is something being hidden – and, as Greece showed, when it comes out, it causes repercussions. I read most of what i read with a dose of scepticism and a dose of worry – I really don’t want the stats coming from China to be wrong – that would really hurt.
Of course, as the CCP is claiming the mantle of Chinese civilisation and increasingly controlling the press in HK, one could guess there is a bit of polarisation going on.
But yes, I admit the press does lay into China.

To #200:
“They can kill 98% of the people who would oppose them in an election.”
—that doesn’t sound like democracy to me. It doesn’t even sound very fatherly…assuming that “dad” actually cares about “the children”, rather than simply wanting to kill off the ones who don’t toe the line. Man, as families go, that’s downright Medieval.

“Then make it into a democracy, where people they don’t like aren’t allowed to vote.”
—that also doesn’t sound like a democracy to me. Note to self…don’t let Merp design democracies.

“It can wait- to when China’s GDP per capita is roughly 15,000-20,000″
—hey, you actually said something that I don’t need to reject out of hand. Second time that’s happened, by my count. Yes, perhaps China isn’t ready for democracy today. As I’ve alluded to, other things need to be in place. Rule of law is probably foremost in my mind. But no matter how you define “readiness” (and you’re not the first to use GDP), there has to be some concept of where you’re going once you reach that state of readiness. And no matter what shape a Chinese democracy might take in the future, the CCP in its current form most definitely doesn’t seem equipped to be the steward of it.

“Maybe you should sample what you preach and be ethnically cleansed/herded into an Indian reservation…”
—umm, I know you’re slow on the uptake, but where did I preach “ethnic cleansing” and “herding on an Indian reservation”? Is it so hard to respond to what I write….you just need to cut and paste. And if you’re going to accuse me of doing the stuff you like to do, then how about some examples? Once again, “same to you” is grade-school, buddy.

“Do you think a China that messes up so badly will have sympathy from the imperialist powers?”
—first of all, if I may direct your attention to present day 21st century and briefly divert your attention away from the 1930′s, there are no imperial powers. Second, I have no reason to believe that China would mess up badly. Thirdly, even if China becomes democratic and her people elect a governing body that turns out to be authoritarian like the Nazis, well….it won’t be substantially different from the authoritarian CCP that they’ve got now.

“A crapshoot with democracy is no better than the current government, which is at least not a complete failure.”
—yes, I gather that is your assessment. It is also completely and utterly meaningless. I’d much rather have the assessment of PRC citizens.

“A particularly brainwashed or bribe segment”
—well come now. Obviously if China is to rid itself of the CCP system, she would also have to rid herself of CCP methods.

“Get real, white supremacist thinking and Nordicism….”
—forget about the veracity of the claims; just humour me and start with how any of that is related to democracy.

“Where are Rome and the Athenian Empire today?”
—you are correct. Democracies have not yet shown the capacity to exist for 2000 years. Remind me again, what’s the track record of longevity for the CCP system? And while you’re at it, can you remind me of how other communist/authoritarian states have fared? If you’re going to suggest that a particularly form of governance might go the way of the dodo bird, it seems the CCP’s is a better candidate than some others.

“The only places where democracy is a “success”…”
—so when you say “only”, that’s North America, Europe, the Baltic. That’s a decent chunk of geography. Perhaps you can humour us with a long list of authoritarian successes while you’re at it.

“It means that the fate of minority groups is not clear if China becomes a democracy without fracturing into smaller states.”
—which sounds a lot like the deal the CCP is offering up now.

“Right now the CCP has policy in place to increase their relative populations and preserve their cultures,”
—how’s that going? Well, I assume you think it’s going great. I wonder how the people who actually live in western China think it’s going. Too bad nobody’s asking them. Oh, well, one film-maker went and filmed some responses during the Beijing Olympics, and he got thrown in jail for his troubles. That will certainly encourage others to ask questions of minorities.

“no, again, I was very clear”—
“The point, obviously, was that who is determined fit for a “right to vote” is one way in which democracies screw the people they are supposed to be responsible.”(from #176)
“The government screws (some) people it is responsible for- to make an example, India under Britain- by not giving certain people under their “care” a right to vote.”(from #200)
—if those 2 statements are supposed to mean the same thing, then you and I are using very different forms of the English language. If your piece of work in 176 is supposed to be “very clear”, then I would really get a kick out of an example of “very unclear” from you.

Oh, btw, citizens should have a right to vote. If you’re not a citizen (a permanent resident, for example), you don’t get to vote. “under care” has nothing to do with it.

“This is why the American Revolution happened.”
—huh? Those were colonies. They were taxed without representation ie there was no democracy. They revolted so as to avail themselves to some form of democracy. Do you have a point to make here?

“The fact that some idiot in Alabama can vote in the 2012 election is small comfort to Iraqis”
—precisely. Which is why Iraqis need to be given the reins of their own political system. They need their own democracy, if they so choose, and not someone else’s. Same goes for Chinese people. You’ve actually made my point for me. Thanks.

“simply allowing a “majority vote” to represent the interests of an arbitrarily lumped-together “people””
—This is what I wrote in #156: (“I see that you are referring to what most people would call tyranny of the majority. And absolutely, that is something that needs to be addressed. And you address that by guaranteeing certain inalienable rights (some might even call such a thing a charter, or a constitution) and support those rights through the rule of law.”)
That said, I’m a big believer in self-determination. However, my impression is that minorities have more to gain by being in China than being separated from China, so even if they were given the choice, I think they would opt for making things work within one Chinese nation. But at the end of the day, it should be their call. Currently, the CCP sees to it that they have no such privilege.

“it would arguably be best for California and New York to declare independence from America”
—they would have to decide for themselves.

“bend the line between citizen and subhuman”
—huh? Not being a citizen makes you “subhuman”? Where do you get this stuff? And how does that relate to democracy, pray tell?

You seem to be trying, as is common among folk like you, to conflate apples and oranges. Citizens have voting rights; non-citizens don’t. But even visitors have human rights and are protected by laws. Now, things may have been different in Sparta. Congratulations, your “arguments” against democracy might have some legitimacy in a society from 2000 years ago. In 2010, not so much.

“It depends on who the “9 dudes” are”
—you are beyond hope, and have now traversed the ridiculous and entered the world of the sublime. I will concede, however, that the CCP system is fantastic if you are one of those 9 dudes, or had the good fortune to be related to one of them. Otherwise, you’re kinda screwed, to varying degrees.

“less politically monolithic than either Republicans or Democrats.”
—perhaps someday, you will find the time to extricate your head from the tightly-packed sand which currently encases it, and learn something about systems beyond the US of A. Someday…

“The CCP could kill 98% of their potential political enemies…”
—yet again, you reveal your “understanding” of democracy to be fairly non-existent. I guess that’s why you think the CCP system is so grand. Really, you ought to go there and drink it up.

“I hope the Chinese people vote to turn Canada into a crater in 2050,”
—PRC citizens don’t get to vote on Canada, even if China becomes a democracy. You really do have challenges…I imagine you must ride the special bus and wear the special helmet most of the time, and when you’re not, you’re blogging here.

“Oh so you’re God know,”
—this would normally be too stupid to merit a response, but the word you wanted is “now”, not “know”. You’re welcome.

Why does China need Taiwanese students in its schools”
—ok, so you love the CCP, but won’t go to schools in its jurisdiction. You’ve visited areas controlled by the CCP, but never lived there. And yet you choose to live and study in a place whose system does not appeal to you. So are you a hypocrite, or a masochist?

To 206:
“many Taiwanese and Hong Kongers are increasingly skeptical of the West’s manufactured anti-Chinese line as of late.”
—well, at least one Taiwanese, anyway. Does “one” constitute “many” in the same way that “one” constitutes a “list”?

Haha, you claimed you lived in Taiwan..obviously either you are plain ignorant or you don’t live in Taiwan at all. Chiang Kai-shek was inept when it comes to managing the economy. If there is anyone to credit for Taiwan’s economic success, it will be Li Kwoh-ting, not Chiang Kai-shek.

Chiang Kai-shek inept? Sure. As inept as CSB? Resounding no.

In merp’s terminlogy, Hong Kongers have been “bowing to the West” by consistently demanding for universal suffrage.

94% of them express confidence in Hu Jintao, so I guess it’s not as straightforward as the telegraph would like you to think.

NZ is afforded this luxury, because unlike China, America does not want to destroy NZ.

—that doesn’t sound like democracy to me. It doesn’t even sound very fatherly…assuming that “dad” actually cares about “the children”, rather than simply wanting to kill off the ones who don’t toe the line. Man, as families go, that’s downright Medieval.

That’s the reality of Canada. The Natives, who would have resisted the nation of Canada, were reduced drastically in number. That means that anything that is a question of rival ethnic interests- no, the very right of the natives to be given space to exist as a people- will always be decided in favor of the newcomers.

that also doesn’t sound like a democracy to me. Note to self…don’t let Merp design democracies.

So was Athens a democracy or not, slaves and women and poor men could not vote. 50% of the population was enslaved, 25% was free women, 15% was free men who did not own land. The remaining ten percent voted.

Rule of law is probably foremost in my mind. But no matter how you define “readiness” (and you’re not the first to use GDP), there has to be some concept of where you’re going once you reach that state of readiness. And no matter what shape a Chinese democracy might take in the future, the CCP in its current form most definitely doesn’t seem equipped to be the steward of it.

Yes I’d say rule of law and transparency now is vital. But if you paint as some kind of missionary endeavor to democratize China like Iraq was “democratized”, you’re going to run into resistance at all levels… which doesn’t help anyone.

Then I guess you haven’t sampled liberal democracy until you’ve been raped and murdered by roaming crackheads, as is very common in America. Your chances of being killed by the CCP in China are next to nothing compared to your chances of being murdered in America, due to general lawlessness and ineffective government.

umm, I know you’re slow on the uptake, but where did I preach “ethnic cleansing” and “herding on an Indian reservation”? Is it so hard to respond to what I write….you just need to cut and paste. And if you’re going to accuse me of doing the stuff you like to do, then how about some examples?

Because Canada and America’s foremost political opponents- the Natives- were exterminated to make room for what your livelihood is built on. Isn’t that obvious enough? Or do you really think that if Canada were 95% Native they’d tolerate the wanton desecration of their homes?

there are no imperial powers.

And there are no authoritarian regimes.

governing body that turns out to be authoritarian like the Nazis, well….it won’t be substantially different from the authoritarian CCP that they’ve got now.

You mean it will be like America and Canada. That would be bad for other reasons besides politics.

Obviously if China is to rid itself of the CCP system, she would also have to rid herself of CCP methods.

Because we all know how CSB ended all corruption in Taiwan in his two terms as president, and now the poor man is serving jail time for it. Truly a saint among saints.

forget about the veracity of the claims; just humour me and start with how any of that is related to democracy

Why should I? You were telling me it’s racist to indict the German people for their voting habits. I say it was par for the course- something white people have to own up to. I’m not the one who invited that tangent.

Democracies have not yet shown the capacity to exist for 2000 years. Remind me again, what’s the track record of longevity for the CCP system?

Lets see, several thousand years? It’s been that way because it’s been a necessity at times.

it seems the CCP’s is a better candidate than some others.

Then why are you making such a fuss?

so when you say “only”, that’s North America, Europe, the Baltic. That’s a decent chunk of geography. Perhaps you can humour us with a long list of authoritarian successes while you’re at it.

North America and Europe were built on genocide and slavery, not democracy. Unless, again, you think a system where blacks and women cannot vote is true democracy. Who will be the “blacks” of China’s fledgling democracy then? Non-Communists? So the CCP is already democratic, in other words.

which sounds a lot like the deal the CCP is offering up now.

Circular logic and unsourced statements aside, no. This is far, far from the truth.

how’s that going? Well, I assume you think it’s going great. I wonder how the people who actually live in western China think it’s going. Too bad nobody’s asking them. Oh, well, one film-maker went and filmed some responses during the Beijing Olympics, and he got thrown in jail for his troubles. That will certainly encourage others to ask questions of minorities.

You mean Tibet, or Xinjiang? In Tibet it’s going well. In Xinjiang, China failed to stop the Uighur invaders from destroying Qiang, Hun and Tibetan culture but that’s a long time to be going back.

Oh, btw, citizens should have a right to vote. If you’re not a citizen (a permanent resident, for example), you don’t get to vote. “under care” has nothing to do with it.

Oh okay then the CCP should conveniently draw borderlines right around Zhongnanhai and declare everyone else a permanent resident, illegal alien, subhuman, or imperial subject. There, China is already a democracy.

huh? Those were colonies. They were taxed without representation ie there was no democracy. They revolted so as to avail themselves to some form of democracy. Do you have a point to make here?

They revolted to afford themselves *self-rule*. To escape the tyranny of the majority- or tyranny of the leveraged interests- that ruled them from Britain.

Which is why Iraqis need to be given the reins of their own political system. They need their own democracy, if they so choose, and not someone else’s.

Oh okay, so lets say these Iraqis vote to nationalize their oil and decide to rescind their no-bid contracts to Western oil companies, can we be sure there will be no CIA-led regime change? As we can see from Iran, that doesn’t always turn out well.

I think they would opt for making things work within one Chinese nation. But at the end of the day, it should be their call

Reasonable, but then should Black Americans be able to vote for independence from the United States? How will territorial claims be handled? Usually at the point of a gun and with broken treaties, as far as we can tell from American and Canadian history.

they would have to decide for themselves.

Is it even possible? Would other states allow their cash cows to up and leave? Some Southern states tried to secede once, we all know what happened then.

huh? Not being a citizen makes you “subhuman”? Where do you get this stuff? And how does that relate to democracy, pray tell?

I already explained this to you. The concept of what makes a person a citizen is arbitrary and established after the fact to uphold the status quo. Mexicans make up a sizeable chunk of America’s workforce, but they’re denied political rights. Blacks were born and raised in America but were not given the right to vote for hundreds of years- after that they were discriminated against by Jim Crow laws.

These were ruthless institutions put in place so that the institutions of America would benefit one monolithic group of people (rich white men) at the expense of everyone else.

Given your dismissal of the contradiction between “democratic” imperial Britain and their abhorrent acts in India, I take it you’d find it acceptable for the PRC to engage in some type of historical revisionism and declare 90% of the population illegals, non-citizens, dependents, 3/5ths of a person, permanent residents, subhumans, that are thus not accorded a vote. That’s democracy for you, the history of Canada for you.

non-citizens don’t.

Okay then, the CCP are citizens. Everyone else is a non-citizen. Therefore the CCP is already democratic.

perhaps someday, you will find the time to extricate your head from the tightly-packed sand which currently encases it, and learn something about systems beyond the US of A. Someday…

Yes because tiny nations are so relevant to China. Hey, it works for Vatican City, it will work for China! Look how wealthy Vatican City is! China should be a theocracy!

There are two, or three, good examples- Russia, America, India. Okay maybe more, Brazil and Japan. They all fall short of your ideals.

And you dismiss America as an example, so China should be like Canada? Last I checked, China does not sit on billions upon billions of barrels of oil, and vast mineral wealth. It is also not a vassal state of a larger patron power (US in Canada’s case).

yet again, you reveal your “understanding” of democracy to be fairly non-existent. I guess that’s why you think the CCP system is so grand. Really, you ought to go there and drink it up.

Because genocide never happened in the Americas! Thank you for revealing the truth.

PRC citizens don’t get to vote on Canada, even if China becomes a democracy. You really do have challenges…I imagine you must ride the special bus and wear the special helmet most of the time, and when you’re not, you’re blogging here.

Yes they do. All they need is to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Canadian regime will be subsequently hanged.

Or you’re saying America isn’t a democracy. Why don’t you vote in representatives who will express that line to the faces of American higher ups? Yeah I didn’t think so either- the relationship between Canada and America is too lucrative to let pesky Iraqi civilian lives get in the way of.

this would normally be too stupid to merit a response, but the word you wanted is “now”, not “know”. You’re welcome.

You spotted a typo, good job, that’s one to twenty of yours. But since I actually have an argument, I don’t need to nitpick on typos to convince myself I won.

The 22nd Amendment stop him from ruining the nation further. The PRC constitution was, on the other hand, unable to limit Mao’s tenure in power. Only death stopped Mao’s crazy destruction of China. Can’t imagine if Bush were a Chinese leader and remained in power till his death like Mao.

And how Communist is China today?

Though no longer hardcore communist, they are still communist enough to keep Mao’s body from rotting, like what North Korea is doing with their “eternal” president’s corpse. Geez, the crazy cult of personality still lurks around.

Oh okay, so lets say these Iraqis vote to nationalize their oil and decide to rescind their no-bid contracts to Western oil companies, can we be sure there will be no CIA-led regime change?

You kept harping on Iraq like a long-winded old hag. You know what, one of the biggest financial sponsor of the Iraqi War is in fact your dear People’s Republic of China. Without Beijing’s accumulation of US debt, the Americans would have no money for war. In other words, China’s money is actually stained with the blood of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.

“China Largest creditor of US, Holding $681.9 Billion in Bonds,
US Tries to Assure Chinese of Assets safety ”

Though economically inept, CSB didn’t have the honor of issuing a five-million-dollar note “Gold Yuan”. Chiang Kai-shek remained the only Chinese leader to have that hyperinflation “honor”. Chiang was not inept, the problem is he was only just as capable as Mugabe when it comes to managing the economy.

“The Gold Yuan five-million-dollar note issued in 1949, featuring on the front a portrait of the President Chiang Kai-Shek, which is the largest note in denomination ever issued.”

To 218:
“So was Athens a democracy or not,”
—not to me. Which is why it would be great to talk about the 21st century, rather than something from a few thousand years ago. A democracy to me means citizens get a vote…and yes, that means that the US and Canada were not democracies to me until blacks and women were allowed to vote.

“But if you paint as some kind of missionary endeavor…”
—and who said I was wetting my brush for such a painting? I’ve never said that i would like to see a democratic China tomorrow. But I would like to see a democratic China someday. In order to get there, you need to develop some fundamentals which we actually seem to agree on. But beyond that, you also need a vision, and a framework, to get you from A to B. There seems to be a lot of resistance to even the concept of such a framework being in existence. What I can say is I see no role for the CCP in guiding such a journey.

“you haven’t sampled liberal democracy until you’ve been raped and murdered by roaming crackheads, as is very common in America.”
—is the only thing of which you are capable to make outlandish statements? Is violent crime a direct result of democracy? Is violent crime somehow disproportionately tolerated by democracy? Does violent crime not occur in authoritarian states? What I have experienced of democracy is to have cast my vote in elections of all levels of government on multiple occasions, and to have witnessed the peaceful transfer of power at all levels of government. So, what have you experienced of the CCP? Bueller….Bueller….You argue for the promised land, yet have never been there for any length of time, and always with the security of a passport to get you out whenever you wanted.

“Canada and America’s foremost political opponents- the Natives-”
—seriously dude, what?!? As I’ve said before, aboriginal peoples have legitimate grievances, of which you haven’t a clue. They were not political opponents. Their plight at the hands of European settlers was not an effect of democracy. Canada, for instance, is entering into, or has entered into, a number of treaties with a number of separate First Nations peoples over the past 3 years to redress some of the atrocities of previous generations. But those reparations were not on the basis of missteps of democracy, nor were they viewed by aboriginal peoples in that light.

And how does that justify the CCP not giving Chinese citizens rights and freedoms? You can compare all you want, even if it’s apples and oranges, but you still need to answer for the most fundamental of questions. And you seem much more keen on making irrelevant comparisons than addressing those issues, for which it appears you have no answers.

“there are no authoritarian regimes.”
—in the 21st century? What do you call the CCP? What are you smoking?

“Because we all know how CSB …”
—did I say get rid of CCP methods and adopt CSB methods? NOpe. But there you go with comparisons again. China needs to get rid of corruption. So does Taiwan. So do many other countries, I suspect. But I’m just talking about China. Sometimes I have no idea what you’re talking about, but it seems to be any place other than China. I guess one has to distract oneself when one is trying to defend the CCP.

“Why should I?”
—wow, that does sound like a mature and compelling argument.
“You were telling me it’s racist to indict the German people for their voting habits.”
—because the discussion is about the system. That one group of people may have carried out the system poorly does not indict the system. But that seems to be your entire argument…see, democracy allowed people to vote for the Nazis…Nazis are bad…therefore democracy must be bad.

Do I need to draw out the logical fallacy here. If A leads to B, and B leads to C, it doesn’t conclude that A leads to C.

“record of longevity for the CCP system?”…”several thousand years?”
—your grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

“it seems the CCP’s is a better candidate than some others.

Then why are you making such a fuss?”
—to spur them to victory in the dodo-bird race.

“In Tibet it’s going well. In Xinjiang, China failed to stop the Uighur invaders from destroying Qiang, Hun and Tibetan culture but that’s a long time to be going back.”
—ummm, I’m talking even in the last 2 years. Well, I’m glad you think things are peachy. I’d sure like to hear from some people who actually live there, as opposed to armchair dudes like you. But I wonder who can canvass them freely without being thrown in jail like that film-maker.

“Oh okay then the CCP should conveniently draw borderlines right around Zhongnanhai”
—deal! But then the CCP’s jurisdiction would only be the grounds occupied by her headquarters. Everything beyond her gates no longer belong to her. Finally Chinese people will get to judge for themselves. When can they start?

Your “logic” is….actually, I don’t think logic is a good word to describe whatever “that” is.

“They revolted to afford themselves *self-rule*”
—indeed they did. But there was no “majority” or minority at the time, since you need to have a vote to become part of either. And that’s what they lacked. So again, how does that argue against democracy? You seem to reach for all manner of random things for ridiculous comparisons, without ever actually making an argument. It’s like “see, here is an example of something or other, so therefore democracy is bad”.

“so lets say these Iraqis vote…”
—ok, CIA/conspiracy rantings aside, what is your point/argument? As a matter of fact, your very suggestion of “let’s say” is flawed. We shouldn’t have a say in what Iraqis choose to vote on or not vote on. It should be their democracy, and they should decide what they want to vote on. Are you seeing the light yet?

“but then should Black Americans be able to vote for independence from the United States?”
—to me, yes. But does anyone actually want to?

“The concept of what makes a person a citizen is arbitrary…”
—agreed, but man-made rules are by their very nature arbitrary. However, “arbitrary” is quite different from your assertion that non-citizens are sub-human. It also seems bizarre that people who enter a country illegally should automatically expect voting rights upon their arrival.

I agreed earlier that the US was not a democracy in my view until Blacks (who were citizens) were given the vote.

“That’s democracy for you, the history of Canada for you.”
—hardly. You seem to have very little understanding, if any, of either.

“the CCP are citizens. Everyone else is a non-citizen.”
—like I said, past ridiculous, into sublime. You now seem to even be beyond that. Doesn’t an “argument” like that embarrass you? It should.

“China should be a theocracy!”
—gosh, is that what Chinese people want? Who knew?

“They all fall short of your ideals.”
—what are my “ideals”, pray tell? They seem to fall short of YOUR ideals, since you might only accept a “perfect” democracy (however defined). It’s up to Chinese people to define their ideals, and it will be a great day when they are allowed to make such determination.

“so China should be like Canada?”
—do you seriously have attention deficit? China needn’t be like anybody. China should be China. And if her people get to define what she is and will be, so much the better.

“genocide never happened in the Americas!”
—what does that have to do with anything, least of all “democracy”?

“All they need is to find Weapons of Mass Destruction”
—you are not only an idiot, but a war-mongering idiot. That is a terrific combination.

“that’s one to twenty of yours.”
—first of all, show me my twenty typos. Then show me an actual argument you’ve made. I’m not here to “win”; just to expose your “arguments” for the stupidity they represent. Besides, a “win” against you isn’t worth a lot.

“NZ is afforded this luxury, because unlike China, America does not want to destroy NZ.”
??????????????
So is Germany (I believe the voting system in NZ is based on the German model). In fact, I can’t think of any demcracy that follows the American model….

In fact, reading your arguments, I can’t but shake my head. You’re waaaay out of your depth! The only argument I can concede is that India has slipped in the corruption rating, to 85 as compared to China’s 72nd place.
Oddly, the western democracies you so despise are among the least corrupt. But I guess that’s nothing you care about

Anyway, back to history
“The Greeks traded with them- but as far as culture, tech, etc goes it was pretty much a one way thing. This is proven by carbon dating of the relevant artifacts.”
References? So far you’re only running on opinion…and as Mao said, that’s but a dog fart to me

“As for the Honkers et al – I work with them. Many don’t actually share your views

Many? I’d say a few”
From many to a few. Progress!!!

“That’s funny, because Northern Indians are more preoccupied with Nepali and Indian incursions than anything else. The Bhutanese even kicked out 100,000 illegal aliens and refuse to accept them back.”

Indians are worried about Indian incursions into…India? Eh? Arunachal Pradesh – google it

Ferin, I’m not going to publish any more of your comments that keep repeating the same tired argument that because of American’s fuck-up in Iraq everything bad in China can be excused. I’m just tired of it. No more.

t is popularly believed, and may be speculatively assumed, that the first ancestors of most indigenous tribal groups migrated from pre-Buddhist Tibet two or three thousand years ago, if not before, and were joined by Tibetic and Thai-Burmese counterparts later.

Or are you confusing India with some other multi-ethnic entity which has frictions due to an influx of another group…?

You mean America? Oh wait, they killed all their natives. Same with Australia.

The “Northeast Indians” never wanted to be part of India- the British changed that. Most of these were independent states. The Chinese and Tibetans are fundamentally related as peoples- Tibetans, Bhutanese, Ladakhis, Arunachalis, Assamese innately distrust most Hindus who are completely racially different.

But, because they are now minorities in their own homes (unlike Tibetans), these “Northeast Indians” have no choice but to accept a flood of migrants from the South.

“The Chinese and Tibetans are fundamentally related as peoples”
Right, so that makes it OK to annex the area? Great argument.
“Tibetans, Bhutanese, Ladakhis, Arunachalis, Assamese innately distrust most Hindus who are completely racially different.”
Reference? And a Hindu is a member of a religion, not a race. I dare say one has Hindu Tibetans, Bhutanese, Ladakhis, etc, etc. And do you have any reference showing that a plebiscite in these areas on Northern India would result in them voting to join China? Cause last I heard Tibetans weren’t too ken on their colonial overlords either

“Tibet is part of China yet the USA”
Arunachal Pradesh is a part of India yet the CCP…circular argument. If one is a part of a country, then it is a part of the country until it stops being a part of that country. I’m not sure what your USA reference is about – as I read it, the US and the UK accept that all the nations within the Chinese Empire are a part of China.

“Nope, it means they inherently feel more affinity for the Chinese than Indians.”
Riiiight. And that explains the rioting in Tibet…

Merp, merp, merp – you do realise all you’re doing is parroting western pro-Tibetan/Turkestani/insert place of choice views on China on India. And using such old fashioned social-Darwinistic to justify your non-argument. Really, since when did two “races” (snigger…) have closer affinity? Cultures, yes, but “races” Helloooooooo! Are you sure you’re a student? Mind you, in the US – I have been reading about US education…too many religious people in charge there! Besides, your mate HongXing has some differing views about his “race” brothers and sisters in HK

Aryan Empire? WTF? Like…Iran or something? Does this mean Turkestan is, in actual fact, Tocharia and should be returned to us Indo Europeans immediately?

The riots in Tibet were nothing compared to LA, Mumbai or Gujarat. The riots in Tibet were also instigated by American interests. They were done by unemployed young men, a few migrants to Lhasa, not people native to the Lhasa area.

I.e they have less contact with “the evil Chinese” as you say. The funny thing is, the most peaceful “Tibetan” area is also the place where Tibetans and Chinese have interacted the longest, i.e Amdo, where many of China’s singers come from.

you do realise all you’re doing is parroting western pro-Tibetan/Turkestani/insert place of choice views on China on India.

No, I don’t. All I’m saying is that the so-called Northeast Indians are being culturally exterminated by Hindus and Indo-Europeans. The Bhutanese do not trust them and nor do the Arunachalis, the REAL Arunachalis.

Aryan Empire? WTF? Like…Iran or something? Does this mean Turkestan is, in actual fact, Tocharia and should be returned to us Indo Europeans immediately?

Tocharia? LOL. Tocharians are not native to Xinjiang either- the Tibetans were there first. If you want to get technical, the Huns/Yeniseians/Xiongnu whatever you want to call them are the first people of the Tarim Basin. The Tocharians came later and absorbed them, which is reflected in their DNA.

So now that Merp has exhausted his failed attempt at comparing democracy to apples, oranges, and the CCP, we’ve moved on to comparing Tibetans to people in AP, and comparing China’s TAM to India’s “TAM-equivalents”?

I guess when you’re defending the CCP, it’s better to compare than to try to defend her on her own merits.

That’s the whole point- I’m pointing out how the CCP is superior to your much touted “democracies” (which are really just based on genocide, slavery and caste systems).

That in itself is among “her own merits”. The thing is I’m simply not willing to blindly praise the CCP- just compare her to a greater evil, which is democracy, America and democracy and America-lovers.

“I’m pointing out how the CCP is superior…”
—is that what you’ve been trying to do? Sure hasn’t looked like it to me. And I still find it interesting that you’re slumming over here in this land of apparent inferiority (in your blurry eyes) rather than enjoying the spoils of the CCP first-hand on the other side of the pond.

And after all this time, you still can’t grasp the concept that democracy is more than just the US of A. You’re not exactly a quick study, are you?

Can you tell us for example how democracies in Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Cape Verde, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland are “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems”?

Oh look at those huge, 1 billion+ population world powers. They traded with imperialist powers- that’s how. And in exchange, they were supported and protected by said imperialist powers.

Got it? Am I done teaching sp basic geopolitical sense? Or do you still need some lessons? Regardless Singapore is rated better on corruption indices than most of those areas. It’s wealthier, has a higher GDP than most, and it did all of that with next to no natural resources.

@S.K CheungAnd after all this time, you still can’t grasp the concept that democracy is more than just the US of A. You’re not exactly a quick study, are you?

You still can’t grasp that Canada is a vassal and protectorate of the US of A. You’re not exactly bright, are you?

@Mike GoldthorpeAmerica is not the only democracy…oh never mind. You’re like some religious fundy…

See above. You sound more like a nutter yourself.. DEMOCRACY! DEMOCRACY! HALLELUJAH!

And in exchange, they were supported and protected by said imperialist powers.

Definitely. After all, China had seek the tacit approval of the Carter administration before its aggression against of Vietnam in 1979. Deng even toured around the “evil” US of A in a cowboy’s hat before he told Carter he wanted to teach Vietnam a “lesson”.

By Merp’s definition, the CCP’s system fits neatly as being “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” because of its close friendship with the top imperialist power.

In case you need geopolitical lessons, Singapore’s leaders have supported the US invasion of Iraq, consistently eager for the US to maintain its huge military presence in Asia-Pacific and Lee Kuan Yew was adamant that the US should not withdraw from Iraq. By your logic, Singapore looks more like a vassal and protectorate of the US than Canada. So does this fact therefore mean that Singapore’s authoritarian system is one that is “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” too?

LKY, “the American presence, in my view, is essential to the continuation of law and order in East Asia.”

“Vice President Quayle and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew signed a memorandum of understanding in Tokyo on 13 November 1990, permitting US use of facilities in Singapore. Singapore’s Paya Lebar airfield is used for short-term rotations by USAF aircraft. The US is not constructing a base in Singapore; rather, US forces make use of existing Singaporean facilities at Paya Lebar [and Sembawang Port]. This is one form of access which represents a new approach to maintaining US presence in the region. This new approach will consist of a network of bilateral arrangements that facilitate training, exercises and interoperability which, in lieu of permanent bases, will permit the US to remain engaged and forward deployed in Southeast Asia. ”

@sptwoBy logical extension, that includes… the People’s Republic of China. In fact, the PRC’s top trading partner is the most important “imperialist” power, the “evil” US of A.

The PRC’s top “trading partner” is the EU. Regardless, these are just revenues- most of the exports to the US are re-exports of goods imported from Japan and Korea. China gains very little from trade with the US, while US consumers and homeowners are dependent on China, Japan and oil exporting nations.

That’s not the point, anyway. Your claim that Sweden and Norway are good examples of democracy from the ground up are childish. They relied on trade with imperialist powers to get rich- democracy didn’t make them rich. The point is, they could have been dictatorships and they would still be relatively well-off. Like Taiwan or Chile.

By Merp’s definition, the CCP’s system fits neatly as being “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” because of its close friendship with the top imperialist power.

Nice one Merp!

[Deleted by Richard - Merp, you can make your case without calling people names]- the PRC did not receive support or protection from America.

In case you need geopolitical lessons, Singapore’s leaders have supported the US invasion of Iraq, consistently eager for the US to maintain its huge military presence in Asia-Pacific and Lee Kuan Yew was adamant that the US should not withdraw from Iraq. By your logic, Singapore looks more like a vassal and protectorate of the US than Canada. So does this fact therefore mean that Singapore’s authoritarian system is one that is “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” too?

Novice. Singapore’s gov’t might be a verbal shill for the U.S, but they are not a vassal. There’s a difference- Canada relies on the US for defense, political aid, trade. The US purchases Canada’s energy resources. Singapore is a shill for every major power almost- that isn’t criticism. They are just being realistic, if they can kiss up and gain favor in exchange for almost nothing or merely nominal concessions, they win.

Who are you trying to kid really? Then impose trade embargo and sanctions on the US for receiving the DL and selling arms to Taiwan. Sell all your dollars and T-bills. Why not?

They relied on trade with imperialist powers to get rich

A whole lot of authoritarian states like Singapore and Indonesia under Suharto also relied on trade with the imperialist powers to get rich. So what’s the horseshit you are talking about?

On that note, Deng must be a stooge of the imperialist powers when he advocated his “Open Door” policy. Damn, why didn’t Mao kill this “capitalist roader” who eventually link up China with the imperial powers during the Cultural Revolution?

When and where did anyone, except yourself, make the claim that “democracy make countries rich”?

Cite where i have said “democracy make countries rich”. You are truly in a world of your own.

Singapore’s gov’t might be a verbal shill for the U.S, but they are not a vassal

Hoho. You know which imperial power is Singapore’ largest arms supplier? You know which country provide the most logistical support to the US in Southeast Asia after the closure of Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines in 1992? No prize for guessing the right answer. You know Singapore in fact have a Five Power Defense Agreement with “imperial” powers like the UK, Australia and NZ?

The facts i provided speak for themselves. And your facts until now? Zilch.

It is interesting to see merp to trivializing one of his “favourite” countries’ deep involvement with the US “imperialists” in Iraq from diplomatic to military actions. Indeed, from merp’s logic, Singapore’s authoritarian system is based on “genocide, slavery and caste systems” just like those “damn” democracies in Canada and the UK.

To #253:
“You still can’t grasp that Canada is a vassal and protectorate of the US of A.”
—ummm, how exactly do you figure that, in the confines of your head? We have our own democracy that is completely different from the US (oh, that’s right, all you’ve seen is the US so you may not realize that). We are the US’s largest trading partner (and Americans actually pay us for our goods). So it seems like a mutually beneficial relationship. Sure, the US has 10 times more people. And of course we are not in the same league militarily. However, the point of the discussion is democracy. So what does Canada’s relationship with the US have to do with that? It seems that, every time I look, you throw up all these statements that have no relevance to the point at hand. You have an interesting “debating” style. Oh, and yet again, imitation is the highest form of flattery. You really need to start to show some originality, among other things.

You have yet to ask yourself, how many authoritarian regimes still exist in the world today? How many democracies exist? There seems to be a discrepancy, no? Why do you think that is? If authoritarian rule represents such nirvana, why do you think that people in democracies haven’t chosen to go that route themselves? You take your time.

To 257:
“democracy didn’t make them rich. The point is, they could have been dictatorships and they would still be relatively well-off.”
—ok, so you introduce this whole red herring about the relative wealth of different countries. Then you come right out and state that the form of governance has nothing to do with it (I agree with that, btw…China’s authoritarian but her economy since “opening up” is as capitalist as any other). So when the initial discussion is about democracy being a superior form of governance from the perspective of the people, what does economy have to do with that anyway? Nothing. If it’s nothing, why do you bring it up, when even you admit that democracy and economy can be true/true/unrelated.

I imagine most people in most countries want a good economy. They don’t look to democracy alone to provide that. But in any given economic state, it still might be nice to have people make decisions for themselves, rather than have some authoritarian “dad” make it for them.

@sptwoWho are you trying to kid really? Then impose trade embargo and sanctions on the US for receiving the DL and selling arms to Taiwan. Sell all your dollars and T-bills. Why not?

Oh okay I’ll make a call and do just that. The reason is, genius, that very little is better than nothing. And few would appreciate it if China were to destroy America financially.

A whole lot of authoritarian states like Singapore and Indonesia under Suharto also relied on trade with the imperialist powers to get rich. So what’s the horseshit you are talking about?

So you concede the point- democracy is not necessary for development.

You know which imperial power is Singapore’ largest arms supplier?

That’s just business- what matters is who these arms are directed against. America sells arms to everyone- including rebels in Sudan.

You know which country provide the most logistical support to the US in Southeast Asia after the closure of Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines in 1992? No prize for guessing the right answer. You know Singapore in fact have a Five Power Defense Agreement with “imperial” powers like the UK, Australia and NZ?

To tone down hostility from Malaysia.

They don’t just kiss. They deployed military forces to support the US in the Iraq war as part of George Bush’s infamous “coalition of the willing”.

192 military personnel. Oh yes, what a huge commitment- sptwo is the chronic egomaniac, the type that the Singaporean elites would be able to manipulate to no end.

Haha, if not, why would Deng go all the way to America just to tell Carter that he is going to teach Vietnam a “lesson”? He could have done it without telling the Americans, but why didn’t he?

Haha because visiting a country is obviously proof of… what? The US didn’t help China at all during the Sino-Vietnamese war. Your arguments are idiotic. You’re desperately grasping at straws. You lost- get over it.

Well I guess the U.S did “attack” Vietnam in one way during that war- by directly causing the rise of Pol Pot through Operation Menu:

Here is the sum of your pathetic and laughable argument in the face of common sense-

Providing 192 personnel to a joke of a war is equivalent to being entirely under the sphere of influence of a nation, falling under their political ideology entirely, siding with them on every international conflict, relying on their missile shield, being subsidized (NOTE: this is different from an arms purchase, novice) by the patron nation’s military, etc.

Really now, I guess then Arabs and Romans were the vassals of Tang China too. Talk about delusional.

@SKSo what does Canada’s relationship with the US have to do with that?

You can afford to be weak because America owns you. You can afford your wealth because you have no military threats within thousands of miles- partly because Canadia so thoroughly exterminated the indigenous that they could not mount military or political action against her.

This is an OBVIOUS point. Stop pretending you don’t understand in an attempt to bog me down, in lieu of an actual argument.

You have yet to ask yourself, how many authoritarian regimes still exist in the world today? How many democracies exist? There seems to be a discrepancy, no? Why do you think that is? If authoritarian rule represents such nirvana, why do you think that people in democracies haven’t chosen to go that route themselves? You take your time.

If perfect, flawless, light-of-the-world democracy is so great and able to weather dissent, then why did you kill all your natives, who are natural political and racial enemies of the West?

Why don’t you allow them to be 90% of the population again, and we’ll see how the idea of Canada survives. Oh no, that wouldn’t be democratic! Because after all, European anchor babies and their shills and manservants (you) have discussed among yourselves and decided that you’re citizens of land you’re totally foreign to. Essentially dropping your nation over theirs. In that case I don’t see why illegal aliens can’t simply form their own nation out of Texas and California and then have the “democratic right” to oppress European anchor babies.

when the initial discussion is about democracy being a superior form of governance from the perspective of the people, what does economy have to do with that anyway? Nothing. If it’s nothing, why do you bring it up, when even you admit that democracy and economy can be true/true/unrelated.

Obviously because sptwo brought that up when the opportunity presented itself- after you continued to drag the discussion on based on your failure to grasp very simple concepts.

I can’t even remember what he was trying to refer to, but his arguments are at best utterly moronic, so I can’t be bothered to look for it. Maybe if he could write in an interesting style, instead of grasping at straws and vomiting barely related tangents, he wouldn’t be so forgettable- aside from his pathological obsession and rage.

My point is that authoritarianism creates a stronger country- at the expense of the people. I never said anything else, don’t look at my POV through the lens of sptwo’s aggressive delusions.

Democracy, however, is really not any better. It’s simply a circus for the mob. Democracy in the proper sense; not the dressed up version that is being marketed.

To be fair, the world’s current cabal of democracies thrives on creating an economic, political, cultural, etc pacts that profit from the victimization of “rogue states”. A form of amoral familialism on the international scale. That’s a credit to democracy, I guess, if you don’t mind the fact that the top power decides which countries are “bad” and coerces unilateral action against them.

But in any given economic state, it still might be nice to have people make decisions for themselves, rather than have some authoritarian “dad” make it for them.

“people make decisions for themselves”, you mean the central banks taking “the people’s” tax dollars and giving them to bankers without any stipulations. Yes, “the people” benefited, if you mean CEOs and execs.

Means that after all you didn’t have the balls to do it? Case closed. Next.

So you concede the point- democracy is not necessary for development.

When did i say “democracy is necessary for development”? Cite where i have said this. Knocking down strawmen you have painstakingly constructed do give you a sense of satisfaction isn’t it?

That’s just business

Didn’t change the fact that Singapore relies on the US for arms supply and sophisticated arms to defend itself against its neighbours. Next.

To tone down hostility from Malaysia.

Didn’t change the fact that Singapore needed the “imperial” powers’ support to ensure its national security. Next.

192 military personnel.

Compare to countries which didn’t send any? For Singapore, which is a tiny city-state to do that is a sign of commitment. Japan, a staunch ally, only sent 600. From a proportional perspective, its 192/4.5million of the Singapore population. For Japan, its 600/100million of its population. Do some maths dude.

Haha because visiting a country is obviously proof of… what?

Deng was trying to get the “imperialist” power’s green light and get as much diplomatic cover as possible before he fires his first shot at the Vietnamese. Still evaded answering why Deng had to travel thousands of miles to Washington to discuss this with Carter. Next.

Anyway, if visiting a country is no big deal, then Taiwan’s president should visit the national capitals of all the countries as often as possible. It’s no big deal, a proof of nothing, right? Why Beijing makes big fuss over visits if they are proof of… what?

under the sphere of influence of a nation, falling under their political ideology entirely, siding with them on every international conflict, relying on their missile shield, being subsidized

Let’s go through your list:
1) under the sphere of influence of a nation- LKY argued time and again for the US to stay in his neighbourhood and frequently hosted their troops. Checked.

2)falling under their political ideology: Singapore is hardly democratic but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar aren’t democratic either. So ideology wasn’t a criteria for being a US vassal. Checked.

3)siding with them on every international conflict: Supported invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and even dispatched personnelover. Checked.

4)relying on their missile shield: Rely on ties to US, UK, Australia to survive in their tough neighbourhood. Checked.

5)being subsidized: How was Canada “subsidized”? Anyway, did i tell you Singapore has been given the privilege of using US bases for training purposes? Singapore’s small area doesn’t allow much training to be done.

directly causing the rise of Pol Pot through Operation Menu:

After that, China picked up the tab from the US and became Pol Pot’s genocidal regime most important ally. Oh, that’s why Deng went to war with Vietnam isn’t it?

The most pathetic ones are those who consistently find it fulfilling and liberating by knocking the very strawmen they have made. Geez, you have my condolences.

To 264:
“You can afford to be weak because America owns you.”
—what does this have to do with your argument against democracy?

“Canadia so thoroughly exterminated the indigenous that they could not mount military or political action against her”
—I’ve said this before. What happened with aboriginal peoples 300-400 years ago was neither democratic nor undemocratic. They had land that initial North American settlers wanted. How this serves as any argument whatsoever against the concept of democracy is beyond human comprehension…but I guess it somehow makes sense to you.

“Stop pretending you don’t understand”
—I’m not pretending. I’m not sure what your “obvious” point is supposedly in support of, but it certainly isn’t in support of an argument against democracy.

“why did you kill all your natives, who are natural political and racial enemies of the West?”
—huh? Do you read what you write? Aboriginals are “racial” enemies of the west? They’re “political” enemies of the west? Jeez louise dude, give your head a shake. You keep harping on the aboriginal issue about which you have no clue.

“Why don’t you allow them to be 90% of the population again”
—okay, apart from turning back the clock 300 years, how might you propose this be done, Einstein? And once again, aboriginals were targeted back then not because they were a threat to democracy (heck, there was no USA or Canada back then, and no democracy to speak of). Your whole “argument” might go towards rebuking European settlers for colonizing the AMericas, but gets nowhere insofar as arguing against democracy is concerned. But what you lack in substance you make up for in effort, since you’re still beating on the same tired drum.

“decided that you’re citizens of land you’re totally foreign to.”
—no idea what you’re arguing here, but beyond the first generation of settlers who came from Europe, all subsequent generations were born here. So they’re not foreigners…although I suppose it depends on what bizarre definition you might employ for “foreigner”.

“I don’t see why illegal aliens can’t simply form their own nation out of Texas and California”
—not that it would ever happen, but even using your own example with aboriginals, these illegal aliens would have to vanquish the current residents first. Like I said, your “arguments” moved beyond ridiculous long ago, and are now pushing the outer limits of sublime. Not sure what lies beyond that, but I’m sure you’ll surprise me.

“My point is that authoritarianism creates a stronger country- at the expense of the people.”
—ok, so you’ve given up the “argument” that economy has anything to do with mode of governance. Good. So what defines a “stronger country”? And who consented to the genesis of this stronger country at the expense of the people? Like I said, if people got to choose, and they opted for a stronger country at their own expense, and they actually believed someone like you telling them that they needed authoritarianism to get that strong country which they seek, and wanted to go the authoritarian way en mass, that would be grand. Did PRC citizens get to make that choice (and spare me the bit about them choosing 60 years ago)? And I wonder why people in other countries haven’t made a similar “choice”.

“Democracy, however, is really not any better”
—you know what, at the worst that you can characterize, if people in a democracy chose to go the route of the mob, 51% is still better than 9 guys. Of course, every time you make silly references to “mob rule”, you ignore all the other aspects of society like rule of law and human rights which keeps tyranny of the majority in check. I suppose it helps your argument, but even then not very much.

“democracies thrives on creating an economic, political, cultural, etc pacts…”
—and this is bad how? This argues against democracy how? I’ve intentionally left out the second part of that statement…even I concede that some things aren’t even worth talking about with you. Of course, none of this relates in any way to why democracy would be bad for China. You have a curious habit of forgetting the central point of the discussion. But I’m happy to point it out to you over and over again.

“you mean the central banks…”
—nope, what i said was “economic state”, as in “good economy”, “mediocre economy”, or “lousy economy”, “people make decisions for themselves, rather than have some authoritarian “dad” make it for them.”
As for your tangent about central banks, I’m not positive about the US situation, but I’m reasonably certain it’s not Bernanke bailing out the banks; rather, it’s your elected representatives. Certainly in Canada, “bail-outs” and stimulus packages were orchestrated by government, and not the Bank of Canada. I realize you know nothing about anything beyond the US…just thought I’d let you know. But some of your characterizations about the American system which you rail against are…how should i say it delicately….misinformed.

@MikeYou know, Merp., your harping on the US’s (because that is your homeland) treatment of their aboriginal people makes me think you would be in favour of Uyghur and Tibetan freedom.

Ideally “Tibet” would eventually gain more autonomy (including Amdo and Kham, which were annexed in the 1700s), but I wouldn’t care either if Inner Mongolia were returned to Mongolia and Manchuria recognized again as a separate entity.

That’d be a long time coming though- if it were to happen now, they’d just become lapdogs of the West and antagonize China.

However, the Uighur don’t have any right to any land in China at all. I’d say Uzbekistan is a good place for them.

@sptwo2)falling under their political ideology: Singapore is hardly democratic but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar aren’t democratic either. So ideology wasn’t a criteria for being a US vassal. Checked.

So you admit all the whining the US is doing now is about China possibly becoming a rival, and not anything else. Thanks. So you agree that democracy is also worthless and irrelevant. Good.

@S.K Cheungwhat does this have to do with your argument against democracy?

…………

They had land that initial North American settlers wanted. How this serves as any argument whatsoever against the concept of democracy is beyond human comprehension…but I guess it somehow makes sense to you.

…………

Because the Native input on governance in Canada is, and always has been, rendered a non-issue by genocide. This is one way democracies “cheat”; by denying recognition to opposition groups by exterminating them or declaring them non-citizens. If Canada actually had to at least pay basic respect to the indigenous, they would be crippled politically and economically.

—okay, apart from turning back the clock 300 years, how might you propose this be done, Einstein? And once again, aboriginals were targeted back then not because they were a threat to democracy (heck, there was no USA or Canada back then, and no democracy to speak of). Your whole “argument” might go towards rebuking European settlers for colonizing the AMericas, but gets nowhere insofar as arguing against democracy is concerned. But what you lack in substance you make up for in effort, since you’re still beating on the same tired drum.

The point. is. obvious. Democracy, aside from being a failure, is aggressive towards outgroups and “non-citizens”. What gave European anchor babies the right to build their retarded democracy on the land of First Nations? In that case the CCP could pick its 200 million best friends, build a democracy on all parts of China, and consider everyone else a non-citizen. Goes to show how arbitrary democracy is, and how established powers take control by limiting the rights of their opponents.

no idea what you’re arguing here, but beyond the first generation of settlers who came from Europe, all subsequent generations were born here. So they’re not foreigners…although I suppose it depends on what bizarre definition you might employ for “foreigner”.

Being born on a piece of land doesn’t mean you have right of citizenship to the Natives. You are superimposing your laws and nation over their nation. More political shenanigans from democracies.

So what defines a “stronger country”? And who consented to the genesis of this stronger country at the expense of the people?

Who needs consent? Did Canada ask for “consent” when she killed 98% of the indigenous in order to gain access to raw materials and land? No.

A stronger country is, obviously, a stronger country. In other words, less likely to be killed off. I didn’t concede anything on the point of the economy- sptwo just came in rambling about nonsense, and compared Sweden to China. Then he mentioned Deng visiting the US as if that mean China received US patronage for all of its development. Utter nonsense.

All other things equal, and authoritarian government can protect the collective interests of the nation better. At the expense of people- individuals.

Like I said, if people got to choose

And like I said, “the people” are often just a faceless, unpredictable mob that is influenced by vested interests. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Canada and America.

51% is still better than 9 guys.

No, it’s not. It could be better or worse, it depends on who it is. It could be the dumbest 51 out of 100 people in the country.

you ignore all the other aspects of society like rule of law and human rights which keeps tyranny of the majority in check.

None of which are related to democracy. Look, you need to stop bringing this up in defense of democracy because it’s a sham. You say you don’t, but you keep doing it.

…even I concede that some things aren’t even worth talking about with you.

Because I’ll make you look stupid or ignorant? Don’t be so hard on yourself.

it’s your elected representatives.

Most of which are bought by lobbyists, of course this doesn’t count as “corruption” to democracy-lovers.

Certainly in Canada, “bail-outs” and stimulus packages were orchestrated by government,

I’ve already stated that Canada is small-fry. California has a bigger economy than Canada and is more relevant to the world. That’s why there aren’t parasites from all sorts of places setting up camp in Canada- you can have your delusion of perfect democracy only because America shields you in many ways.

Furthermore, and I think it goes without saying (maybe not, judging by the intellectual level on this blog’s comment roll) that democracy just boils down to a breeding race when it involves separate ethnic groups, religions, castes, etc.

There is no reason why one First Nations vote should be canceled out by one anchor baby vote. That is a fundamental injustice- something people who are living it up at their expense will not appreciate.

So you admit all the whining the US is doing now is about China possibly becoming a rival, and not anything else. Thanks. So you agree that democracy is also worthless and irrelevant. Good.

When has anyone here claim that the US is a true-blue, altruistic “democratic” Savior? They have supported crooks like Pol Pot and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq together with China. Now we know why you are so bitter about democracy: You are one of those naive ones who believe that the US is indeed the Messianic do-good democracy goddess but you just realized that it is all a farce. We never had that “democratic” illusion about the US and that’s why we save ourselves from all the bitterness which you have engulfed yourself in right now.

Democracy is =/= to the US. Liberate yourself from the bitterness merp. At the rate which you wallow in self-pity and bitterness, you may suffer a stroke if you are not careful.

“the people” are often just a faceless, unpredictable mob that is influenced by vested interests. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Canada and America.

The party cadres are often just faceless bureaucrats that is influenced by power and corruption. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Tibet and Xinjiang.

Most of which are bought by lobbyists, of course this doesn’t count as “corruption” to democracy-lovers.

Most party officials even buy and sell public offices like commodities. Of course this doesn’t count as “corruption” to CCP lovers, it is euphemistically called “guanxi”.

All other things equal, and authoritarian government can protect the collective interests of the nation better. At the expense of people- individuals.

Nope. Li Peng, Marcos, Mobutu, Mugabe, Suharto and many despots protect the collective interests of their cronies, relatives and the elite at the expense of people.

Then he mentioned Deng visiting the US as if that mean China received US patronage for all of its development.

Nope. Not for development. But for getting the green light and diplomatic cover from the imperialists to drop bombs and shell villages in some parts of Vietnam.

Because the Native input on governance in Canada is, and always has been, rendered a non-issue by genocide

I wonder how much Tibetan “input” are there in the Politburo meeting papers.

To 270:
“Because the Native input on governance in Canada is, and always has been, rendered a non-issue by genocide.”
—once again, huh? Each aboriginal person has one (1) vote. Which is the same number any other citizen gets. So how has their input been “rendered a non-issue”? The only way your point makes any sense (and I’m using the concept of “making sense” very loosely here) is if you assume that aboriginal peoples can only exert their influence by voting as a racial bloc, regardless of their individual perspectives on any given issue. To which I’d have to ask why you would make that assumption.

“Democracy, aside from being a failure, is aggressive towards outgroups and “non-citizens””
—huh? What the heck is an “outgroup”? Are you making up words now? And when you say “non-citizen”, do you mean permanent legal resident of a country, citizens of another country, or what? And how is democracy “aggressive” towards whatever it is you’re talking about? Once again, more words from you which make little to no sense.

“What gave European anchor babies the right to build their retarded democracy on the land of First Nations?”
—like I said, you might use such a line of “argument” to rebuke Europeans for settling in North America in the first place. But it’s no argument against democracy. As for what gave them the right, you might view it as the result of any war…to the victor go the spoils. That, btw, is about the only plausible justification to me for China being in Tibet.

“consider everyone else a non-citizen.”
—so you’re suggesting that Chinese people who are not CCP members suddenly become non-citizens of China in order for your dream-world facade of the CCP being a democracy? Well, I must give you credit for being extremely creative. But creativity alone doesn’t make for much of an argument. I wonder how the average PRC person would feel about that. On the other hand, what they think/feel/want doesn’t matter to the CCP anyhow, so I guess nothing would have to change.

“This is one way democracies “cheat”; by denying recognition to opposition groups by exterminating them or declaring them non-citizens.”
—news flash (or perhaps historical review) on timelines. “war” with aboriginals was fought long before the north american nations came into existence, and longer still before they were democracies. So now you’re suggesting that we fought with aboriginals not to take their land, but only to rid them of their democratic rights in advance of the existence of said democracy? Well, like I said before, you’re “creative”; logical, not so much.

“how established powers take control by limiting the rights of their opponents.”
—that’s how the CCP does it…only in her case, she doesn’t even allow for the existence of opponents. Like I said, great system she’s got going.

“Being born on a piece of land doesn’t mean you have right of citizenship”
—like i said, I was expecting you to have a bizarre definition for “foreigner”.

“Who needs consent?”
—democracies do. But I understand that you can’t grasp that concept.

“Did Canada ask for “consent” when she killed 98% of the indigenous”
—no she didn’t. And how’s that an argument against democracy? I’ve asked this question and pointed out this fallacy many times already. You’re a little slow on the uptake. You might use your point (repeated ad nauseum) to argue that settlers were wrong to do what they did. That would be a different discussion. But I’m talking about democracy…and it seems like you’re not. I’m also talking about the CCP, and that you’re definitely not doing; seems you’d rather bring up all manner of other stuff than to face up to what the CCP does. Though that’s not to say that Merp would live there; heavens no, don’t expect Merp to do that.

“authoritarian government can protect the collective interests of the nation better. At the expense of people- individuals.”
—hey, no argument from me on the second point. At least you have the sanity to admit that part. As for the first part, could you remind me how many authoritarian nations still exist, as compared to democratic ones? This is one of those other questions that I’ve also asked before.

““the people” are often just a faceless, unpredictable mob that is influenced by vested interests.”
—you bet. Those “vested interests” are otherwise known as their own interests. Again, understandably a concept that might be foreign to a CCP buff like yourself.

“No, it’s not. It could be better or worse, it depends on who it is.”
—ok, so worse case in a democracy, it’s tyranny of the majority. Best case with the CCP is a tyranny of the extreme minority. That could still even possibly be conceivably better in the eyes of a sane individual? Are you kidding me? You are more deluded that I had imagined.

“Because I’ll make you look stupid or ignorant?”
—ummm, nope. It’s because I’m not qualified to explain certain concepts to wingnuts who have completely fallen off their rocker like you. That may require professional psychiatric training.

“this doesn’t count as “corruption” to democracy-lovers.”
—wrong again. Corruption is corruption, and absolutely does “count”. But if you want to talk about democracy purely as a principle, without overlaying some of the real world realities like laws and such, then corruption isn’t a factor either. Corruption is something that taints the application of democracy, but it doesn’t taint the principle of democracy itself. Similarly, China has all manner of corruption up the whazzoo. So corruption certainly isn’t unique to democracy, and doesn’t factor into the analysis of whether democracy is superior to an authoritarian system. I think democracy is far superior to authoritarianism, in China or anywhere else. But of course you want to have safeguards to minimize or rid the system of corruption. Looks like I’ve left your “point” in a steaming pulp.

“your delusion of perfect democracy”
—seriously man, have you made a conscious decision against reading, and have you simply opted to continually argue against that which no one has said? Democracy, even in an idealized application, is not perfect; it’s just far less imperfect than authoritarianism, from the perspective of the average citizen. Your argument in defense of authoritarianism makes perfect sense if you’re on the Politburo, or related to someone who is.

“democracy just boils down to a breeding race”
—and you objected to the Nazis?

“Being born on a piece of land doesn’t mean you have right of citizenship…….”
Sieg Heil!
Merp…you hanging around them Montana dudes?
You and HX (you know…let’s kill 5000 Hong Kongers to really le them know where they stand sort of thing) really make CCP China seem like a paradise.
Of course, you being a Taiwaner….ahem, well, you know what happened to Quisling, don’t you

sptwo! I’m thrilled. Good, good, you are making progress. You are finally developing from a little brainwashed drone and shill of the West into a real person.

There is no reason why one politburo vote should cancel out the voting rights of all 1.3 billion people’s voting rights. That is not only fundamental but also gross injustice in a gigantic scale.

Quite possibly. But who voted on the Iraq War?

The party cadres are often just faceless bureaucrats that is influenced by power and corruption. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Tibet and Xinjiang.

Tu quoque! And Xinjiang does not belong to the Uighur, and never has. If anything, the Tibetans would be next in line to inherit it. Tibetan Empire, lo!

Nope. Li Peng, Marcos, Mobutu, Mugabe, Suharto and many despots protect the collective interests of their cronies, relatives and the elite at the expense of people.

Marcos, Mobutu, Suharto, the American dream team. These don’t count- they acted as cronies of the U.S. Democracy is rotten to the core.

A perfect imitation of Ahmedinejad and Anette Lu, by courtesy of merp/ferin.

Oh wow lol, did Annette Lu really say that? The DPP is even more depraved than I thought. I guess Michael Turton approves.

So I guess I can move into your house, kill your family, and then me and my 100 best friends can vote on how we use up your food, energy and water. Great system.

To which I’d have to ask why you would make that assumption.

… then when you complain, I’d tell you you’re a bigot. “Why do you hate us?!” Isn’t it fucking obvious? The Natives that have a will to survive want you out. They never voted on your accession to citizenship on their land. Your current system is built on a fundamentally non-democratic premise.

And when you say “non-citizen”, do you mean permanent legal resident of a country, citizens of another country, or what?

Blacks. Women. Natives. Non-whites in general. Slaves. Serfs. Poor men. These were all considered non-citizens or ineligible to vote in the glorious history of democracy. Funny, considering you are the real foreigners.

And how is democracy “aggressive” towards whatever it is you’re talking about? Once again, more words from you which make little to no sense.

Because the big dogs just manufacture consensus and coerce unilateral action. They need an excuse to invade another nation so they hype them up as some kind of international supervillian- Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq, and perhaps Iran next.

But it’s no argument against democracy.

It is. It undermines your notion that developing democracies have a historical precedent aside from classical Athens and modern India.

so you’re suggesting that Chinese people who are not CCP members suddenly become non-citizens of China in order for your dream-world facade of the CCP being a democracy?

No, it just applies to the historical narrative of Canada and America, lol. These great nations you keep talking about. You act like you’re standing for your ideals by living in democracies that are built on mass murder, well…

So now you’re suggesting that we fought with aboriginals not to take their land, but only to rid them of their democratic rights in advance of the existence of said democracy?

Political power is just one form of power, you took their land and resources and burned down their homes to disenfranchise them and enrich yourselves. You swarm them demographically now in a continuation of that policy.

that’s how the CCP does it…only in her case, she doesn’t even allow for the existence of opponents. Like I said, great system she’s got going.

Or they could just kill anyone suspected to oppose them in the future, just like how US-led death squads (SAVAK, Ton Ton Macoute) butchered “Communist babies” and women in their bid to support the “free states” against the Soviets.

And how’s that an argument against democracy? I’ve asked this question and pointed out this fallacy many times already. You’re a little slow on the uptake.

I might have been a little slow in understanding the depth of your mental illness, but other than that I wouldn’t agree. Democracy goes with the will of the mob against the obvious “right” thing to do, when it comes to majority interests pitted against minorities. That’s how it factors in- the Native Americans want you out. White anchor babies vote them down. You seem to think the mob thinking of an arbitrarily defined “citizenry” should overrule common sense, morality and ethics. That’s your problem- you seem to only think in numbers and have no historical knowledge whatsoever.

could you remind me how many authoritarian nations still exist, as compared to democratic ones? This is one of those other questions that I’ve also asked before.

50, apparently. Only 30 full democracies- most of which are sucking at America’s teat. Not that Americans can be truly called democratic, as international unilateralism is their main game. And they have overthrown countless democracies- Chilean, Iranian, Congolese- or worked to undermine them.

That could still even possibly be conceivably better in the eyes of a sane individual? Are you kidding me? You are more deluded that I had imagined.

Because the 9 could be a significant cut above the lowest 51%. It’s a toss-up, calculator boy.

without overlaying some of the real world realities like laws and such

I’ve explained this to you over and over and over- “real world realities like laws and such” do not come with the package you’re trying to hawk.

Corruption is something that taints the application of democracy, but it doesn’t taint the principle of democracy itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of fascism, but it doesn’t taint the principle of fascism itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of class struggle, but it doesn’t taint the principle of class struggle itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of Catholicism, but it doesn’t taint the principle of Catholicism itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of socialism, but it doesn’t taint the principle of socialism itself.

So corruption certainly isn’t unique to democracy

It isn’t. Your claim that democracy fights corruption is thus tossed out the window.

and you objected to the Nazis?

Yes. Using demographics as a tool for subjugation is fundamentally immoral. If Tibetans want to have an independent land free of all foreigners, especially whites and Indians, that is their right. If the Navajo wish the same, it should also be their right. You seem to think any random asshole should be able to break in or jump borders wherever he pleases and then interfere in the personal lives of his victims.

You are more of a Nazi than me I’d say, with your deranged concept of “democratic lebensraum” where white people are rubber stamped into the privilege of going wherever they want at the expense of the indigenous. Think about your delusions for a moment.

So I guess I can move into your house,…”
—yet again, huh? How does your statement serve as a response to your excerpt of what I had written? For the umpteenth time, all the stuff you alluded to occurred before there was a democracy. Your rewarmed point has no bearing on the benefits of democracy. And speaking of China (since you seem allergic to the concept), there’s no need for Chinese to kill one another in order for democracy to be established. Of course that might not be what the CCP had in mind. And this leads me to wonder, since you seem rather dense: do you actually comprehend what you read?

“The Natives that have a will to survive want you out.”
—I would dearly like to know how you came by such knowledge. I suspect your answer will make me laugh.

“Your current system is built on a fundamentally non-democratic premise.”
—that’s true. No one said that a war that ends with the spoils going to the victor is democratic. I’ve already stipulated that (if only you could read). If you want to say that two sides waging war is undemocratic, I’d go along with that. How does something that is undemocratic weaken the premise of democracy? This I’d love to hear.

“Blacks. Women. Natives. Non-whites in general. Slaves. Serfs. Poor men. These were all considered non-citizens or ineligible to vote in the glorious history of democracy.”
—I already agreed long ago that US/Canada weren’t democracies to me until all those groups received the right to vote. Do you have anything to say, or are you now rehashing points by ignoring what I had previously stipulated? Is this the habit that comes after you tire of your prior penchant for arguing against stuff you wished I had said?

“Because the big dogs just manufacture consensus ”
—if you’re going to borrow from Chomsky, you should attribute credit where it is due.

“It undermines your notion that developing democracies have a historical precedent”
—when did I presume such a notion? Are you returning to your initial habit again? Like I said, I wish for China to become a democracy in a fashion as seen fit by Chinese people. For a nation of 1.3 billion to escape from the clutches of authoritarian rule, there is no precedent. So why bother looking for one?

“the historical narrative of Canada and America”
—gosh you have a deficit of attention. That history to which you love to refer involved wars between groups, so for your bizarre example to have any merit, the CCP would have to wage war on the 1 billion non-CCP Chinese citizens. Well, the CCP does have a pretty self-serving system going, so you are probably right that they would kill to hang on to it. If there’s one thing you can count on with the CCP or any authoritarian system, it’s that they like to retain power by any and all means possible. Once again, that’s a great system that you preach.

“You act like you’re standing for your ideals by living in democracies that are built on mass murder”
—news flash: there are democracies that exist outside of North America. Were you aware that there are land masses beside North America, China, and the Indian subcontinent?

“to disenfranchise them”
—yet again, how do you disenfranchise them when a democratic state was yet to exist? So many questions; so few answers from you.

“they could just kill anyone suspected to oppose them in the future”
—yet another terrific argument for how an authoritarian system is wonderful for the people. You have such terrific ideas, you should think about succeeding Hu Jintao.

“the Native Americans want you out.”
—in 2010? Apart from the voices in your head, you know this how? See above.

And (again for the umpteenth time) how is any of this an argument against the concept of democracy for China? If Chinese people disapprove of how European settlers took land from the aboriginals, then they shouldn’t do that in the course of forming a democracy in China. But wait, China is already there. So there’s no one to invade or vanquish. None of this aboriginal stuff has any bearing. It’s the same population of people, on the same mass of land, choosing to govern themselves differently, without the CCP’s fatherly oversight. So, what’s your point again?

“Only 30 full democracies”
—and how many “full” authoritarian states have you got? I wonder how many of those “full democracies” will soon be choosing to go the authoritarian route cuz it seems like such a cozy system. And I wonder if the people of how many authoritarian states would rather live under a democratic system. Just wondering…

“Because the 9 could be a significant cut above the lowest 51%”
—sure, they could be. Just like pigs “could” fly. But I’d say that’s rather unlikely. IF you can’t grasp the concept of odds…well, I can’t possibly teach you everything.

““real world realities like laws and such” do not come with the package you’re trying to hawk.”
—as evidenced by CCP, they most certainly do not come with an authoritarian system, even in the real world. Unfortunately, the CCP is sadly real. But in the real world, democracy does come with laws. Too bad you don’t realize that you live in such a world, even as you continue to live in it.

“Corruption is something that taints the application of democracy, but it doesn’t taint the principle of democracy itself.”
—all your subsequent copycat statements are also permissible. If you want to argue for or against facism, class struggle, religion, or socialism, corruption isn’t the determinant of whether those are good or bad things. This explains why I already said this (“Similarly, China has all manner of corruption up the whazzoo. So corruption certainly isn’t unique to democracy, and doesn’t factor into the analysis of whether democracy is superior to an authoritarian system. I think democracy is far superior to authoritarianism, in China or anywhere else.”). It sure says something when my a priori statements serve to rebut your future “arguments”.

“Your claim that democracy fights corruption is thus tossed out the window.”
—can you not read? See above. Here it is in a nutshell, for a certifiable nut: there’s corruption in democracy and in the CCP. So corruption isn’t going to help you differentiate which one is better.

“If Tibetans want to have an independent land free of all foreigners, especially whites and Indians, that is their right.”
—one of the few logical things you’ve ever said.

“where white people are rubber stamped into the privilege of going wherever they want”
—democracy isn’t about white people vs non-white people. You need to seek help with those racial complexes you carry around.

@SK Cheungyet again, huh? How does your statement serve as a response to your excerpt of what I had written? For the umpteenth time, all the stuff you alluded to occurred before there was a democracy.

Yes because the land Canada is built on isn’t crucial to the existence of Canada. Wow, brilliant!

I would dearly like to know how you came by such knowledge. I suspect your answer will make me laugh.

Oh yes because we all know everyone loves foreign invaders.

If you want to say that two sides waging war is undemocratic, I’d go along with that. How does something that is undemocratic weaken the premise of democracy? This I’d love to hear.

Two sides waging a war? If some stranger busts into your house and shoots you in the face without provocation, that’s a war? No, it’s murder- and Canada committed genocide. Without this genocide, there would be no Canada, democratic or not. People have a fundamental right to their homes- they should never be rendered as 2% minority stakeholders of their own land just because outsiders and invaders delude themselves into thinking they have a democratic right to the other 98%.

I already agreed long ago that US/Canada weren’t democracies to me until all those groups received the right to vote. Do you have anything to say, or are you now rehashing points by ignoring what I had previously stipulated? Is this the habit that comes after you tire of your prior penchant for arguing against stuff you wished I had said?

So then why do you consistently ignore the fact that 1) Canada was not built on democracy so the fact that you “vote with your feet” doesn’t mean shit and 2) Democracy for developing nations has real no precedent applicable to China

if you’re going to borrow from Chomsky, you should attribute credit where it is due.

And if you’re going to parrot American MSM, you should give credit where it is due.

when did I presume such a notion? Are you returning to your initial habit again? Like I said, I wish for China to become a democracy in a fashion as seen fit by Chinese people.

The people… the people… the people the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people…

No, 51% is not “the people”.

CCP or any authoritarian system, it’s that they like to retain power by any and all means possible. Once again, that’s a great system that you preach.

Clearly because established powers don’t exist in any other nation.

news flash: there are democracies that exist outside of North America. Were you aware that there are land masses beside North America, China, and the Indian subcontinent?

Oh yes, like Germany and Switzerland. Hmm any mass murder there? I kinda get the feeling there was some kinda conflict there maybe a few decades ago, but perhaps I’m just dreaming.

Oh but there’s Luxembourg, almost exactly like China.

yet again, how do you disenfranchise them when a democratic state was yet to exist? So many questions; so few answers from you.

Yes because obviously breaking treaties and having no political will for redress don’t affect the Natives at all.

yet another terrific argument for how an authoritarian system is wonderful for the people. You have such terrific ideas, you should think about succeeding Hu Jintao.

Actually if you go by history that fits the description of America and Canada.

So, what’s your point again?

My point is that democracy is shit. Your argument against this point is OH HO HO HO, CANADA IS SO GREAT, I VOTE WITH FEET, SUCH AND SUCH. CCP BAD, BECAUSE IT NOT DEMOCRACY!

Well guess what, Canada wasn’t built on democracy either. So you either find a precedent that isn’t Liechtenstein or you concede the point. Then you’re left with this: hey, 100 million idiots is better than 100 normal people! Mathematically speaking, even though mathematics doesn’t really apply in most circumstances to governance and human behavior.

I wonder how many of those “full democracies” will soon be choosing to go the authoritarian route cuz it seems like such a cozy system.

Obviously they will not, because no one will ever give up their personal power no matter what. Even though they don’t deserve to have a vote, European anchor babies in the Americas will still use them. They’re just as tenacious as the CCP, but they’re worse policymakers and indeed the politburo is probably more intelligent and capable than 90% of Americans and Canadians.

sure, they could be. Just like pigs “could” fly. But I’d say that’s rather unlikely. IF you can’t grasp the concept of odds…well, I can’t possibly teach you everything.

Clearly because everyone is equally capable of everything, lets ignore factors like expertise and reality. That will automatically create a perfect world. Did I miss anything?

But in the real world, democracy does come with laws.

No it doesn’t. Democracy just means citizens vote or vote in representatives- it has nothing to do with rule of law. Singapore has better rule of law than 27 out of 30 so-called full democracies, and is a “hybrid regime”.

If you want to argue for or against facism, class struggle, religion, or socialism, corruption isn’t the determinant of whether those are good or bad things.

The point is your hyperbole has been used by loonies all throughout history. You’re going to have to substantiate your arguments with more than just gibberish about how it’s mathematically sound to assume a huge mob is somehow magically intelligent when on an individual basis they’re generally morons.

there’s corruption in democracy and in the CCP. So corruption isn’t going to help you differentiate which one is better.

Oh okay then we’ll go by how many rainbows are present in the sky over democracies vs. non-democracies, because so far you have gone 200 posts without substantiating one single claim. Aside from spewing your “the people” nonsense, which has already been crushed repeatedly.

democracy isn’t about white people vs non-white people. You need to seek help with those racial complexes you carry around.

Riiight. Because clearly Americans and British people have not been using this democracy nonsense as a pretext to illegal wars, while simultaneously supporting dictatorships and toppling true democracies. It looks like you’re thoroughly brainwashed.

Your main claims
1) Democracy is great because obviously mobs are rational and intelligent entities that have a better decision-making track record than small circles of experienced policy-makers. Sure, I guess I’m willing to entertain this, if you can think of anything (though your knowledge of history appears to stretch all the way back to 2009). It flies in the face of years of study in the fields of psychology and sociology, but whatever.

2) Democracy is great because this one democracy I’m living in is cool even though it was fundamentally non-democratic when its power was seriously threatened. It now exists solely as a minor vassal state to the world’s premier power, a power whose fundamental tenet of foreign policy involves extensive agitprop designed to give it “authority” as the “leader of the free world” (read: democratic nations).

You’ve agreed that America is horribly corrupt, un-democratic, tyrannical, supports dictators, run by lobbyists and interest groups, belligerent and unilateralist. You’re forgetting the fact that America more or less handles defense and shows favoritism to other “democracies” (as long as they don’t vote for anti-Western candidates) via military pacts and preferential trade policies.

China, if democratic, will not receive any of this. Nor will law suddenly be enforced- there is a fundamental flaw with the legal system and it needs a lot of work whether it is applied in the context of a new democracy or the current system.

Corruption will linger as long as poverty does, most likely, and checks and balances are not guaranteed to be immediately effective.

Singapore has better rule of law than 27 out of 30 so-called full democracies, and is a “hybrid regime”.

But do you realize, after reading the entire Transparency International corruption ranking, that Singapore, sadly, is perhaps ONLY the non-democratic regime in the top ten of that ranking? Since this list was complied in 1995, no nondemocratic regimes have joined Singapore in the top ten ranking.

To 284:
“Yes because the land Canada is built on isn’t crucial to the existence of Canada.”
—it’s like I’m speaking to a person who cannot hear, and writing to a person who cannot read. Perhaps it’s both. Yes, the land is necessary. Yes, the land was gotten in an undemocratic fashion (that’s what war is). Haven’t we gone over this several times? You are slower than molasses running uphill. But democracy as a concept in Canada starts after the land was already won, and in fact quite some time after, since I’ve long stipulated that there was no democracy until full voting rights were conferred to everyone. So why do you keep trying to evaluate democracy as a concept on the situation that predates the formation of said democracy? Oh, that’s right, because it might seem convenient for you, never mind that it suffers from a dearth of logic. Furthermore, how this applies to China is anyone’s guess. And I’ve been pointing this out for a number of days, yet here we still are.

“If some stranger busts into your house and shoots you in the face without provocation, that’s a war?”
—you might say the same about China in Tibet. And that happened within the current lifetime for many people, and not generations ago.

“Without this genocide, there would be no Canada, democratic or not.”
—listen, how many times do you have to rehash the same point and get shot down in the same way before the lightbulb starts to flicker in your head. We’re talking about democracy. Your whole line of “argument” has nothing to do with it. If you use your line of argument to suggest that the right thing to do is for everyone not of aboriginal descent to immediately vacate the Americas, that might actually make one or two atoms more sense than to use it as an argument against democracy. However, that then extends to Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific islands, Taiwan, Japan, much of Africa, depending on how far back in time you want to go to define aboriginal. Regardless of that, it still has nothing to do with democracy, or with the prospects of democracy in China. You must enjoy carousels, since you’re fond of going around and around in circles.

“Canada was not built on democracy”
—because, all of what I’ve said to this point notwithstanding, I’m talking about China, not Canada. Who knows what you’re talking about…oh, that’s right, anything but China.

“Democracy for developing nations has real no precedent applicable to China”
—once again, let’s review the tape and see what I said yesterday: (“For a nation of 1.3 billion to escape from the clutches of authoritarian rule, there is no precedent. So why bother looking for one?”). If nothing else, are you not capable of the common courtesy of reading before speaking/writing? And that’s at least the second time in 2 days.

“if you’re going to parrot American MSM,”
—good grief, that stoops to a pathetically low level. But you don’t cease to amaze me. So are you at least going to acknowledge that you’re liberally borrowing from Chomsky?

“The people… ”
—that’s a good start. You really can’t say that enough. Too bad the CCP doesn’t care so much about them, and only about herself. After you repeat that phrase for a while, you might then ask yourself “I wonder what the people would want”. Repeat as required in order for the concept to sink in.

“Oh yes, like Germany and Switzerland.”
—you seem to be forgetting the rest of Europe, for starters. My, you sure have selective comprehension…to go along with selective reading.

“don’t affect the Natives at all.”
—the discussion isn’t about affecting or not affecting “Natives”; it’s about democracy and how it’s superior to the CCP from the perspective of people in China. Isn’t there professional help you can seek for your attention deficit?

“CCP BAD, BECAUSE IT NOT DEMOCRACY!”
—absolutely. And once again (gosh I’m a nice person, so I’ll say it yet again) Canada has nothing to do with it.

“Canada wasn’t built on democracy either.”
—is there an echo in here? Are you a broken MP3 player stuck on repeat? See above in this comment, and you might as well see all the comments I’ve made to you to date. Is anybody home? While you’re fixing your flash memory, you might want to upload a program for mathematics, or perhaps statistics. It’d do you some good.

“because no one will ever give up their personal power no matter what”
—funny you should say this. I agree. And thanks to the CCP in China, CHinese people don’t have to worry about grappling with such a problem. Ok, all together now….”thanks, Dad!”

“politburo is probably more intelligent and capable than 90% of Americans and Canadians.”
—which is hardly the point. Thankfully, the politburo means nothing to us. I wonder if the politburo is smarter than 90% of Chinese people? And before you answer that, you can also ask yourself how you make that determination. While you decipher that conundrum, maybe I’ll go back and tabulate how many times you’ve raised completely irrelevant points in a discussion about democracy in China. btw, did you realize that’s what we’re discussing? Cuz it doesn’t look like it.

“lets ignore factors like expertise”
—when did I say this? What I said, many times, is who gets to determine what expertise is desired, and who possesses such expertise. I say it should be the people. You seem to say things with no accounting for what’s transpired in a discussion up to that point. You’re like Groundhog Day (the movie).

“Democracy just means citizens vote or vote in representatives- it has nothing to do with rule of law.”
—we’re talking about “real world”. Have you seen it?

“The point is your hyperbole…”
—huh? Do me a favour. Could you respond to a point with something that is actually responsive? All I said is that corruption is not a good metric for determining whether democracy is good/bad, or whether authoritarianism is good/bad. Your response to that is that it’s “hyperbole”? Good one. I’d sure pick you if I was picking for a debate team…

“you have gone 200 posts without substantiating one single claim.”
—and what have you done lately? You don’t even have the stones to talk about China, much less live there, even though it sounds to you like nirvana. You’d rather talk about the failings of US, but, oh, it’s okay for you to live there.

“Because clearly Americans and British people…”
—you might start by looking around your neighbourhood and seeing what type of ethnic diversity exists. And it might also be time to stop harping so much about race and colour. You might want to spend some more time instead on your logic, and math.

I’d tell you that your summary of “my main claims” is…how do I put this…quite inaccurate. But you knew that already, since you’ve shown time and again that misrepresenting what others say in order to argue against it is you MO.
Democracy is great because it allows the people to make decisions concerning how they themselves will be governed. Is it perfect? Of course not. Are people fallable and make mistakes? Certainly. But democracy also allows for people to correct their mistakes, in due course. Your favourite (and only) example of where people really made a huge mistake started because of what democracy allowed, but was perpetuated by the subsequent loss of democracy. And yes, people should employ “experts” to do the work that they themselves are unable to do. But the people, as the employer, should decide which experts they will employ. And if the “expert” doesn’t pan out, the people/employer should be able to select replacements. These are good things, provided for in a democratic system, but not currently available in China.
There’s no reason why people in China should be barred from availing themselves to democracy. If and when they do, the manner with which democracy manifests itself as a model of governance need not resemble that of any other. In fact, to presume otherwise already detracts from the democratic rights of Chinese people. I would rather leave it to Chinese people to determine how best to apply democratic rights for themselves, instead of presuming on their behalf.

If you’ll notice, my points relate to the concept of democracy. There is no need to mention Canada, for it’s irrelevant. And since I don’t suggest superimposing Canada’s system onto China, any comparison is also pointless (which aptly sums up much of what you’ve been doing with the whole “aboriginal peoples” charade). Besides, as I’ve also pointed out previously (though I’m sure you didn’t notice because you can’t seem to read), China already exists, and introducing democracy to her people simply requires their will; any discussion of invasion or conquest is yet again irrelevant, which sums up your repeated contribution to the discussion.

“You’ve agreed that America is horribly corrupt, un-democratic, tyrannical, supports dictators, run by lobbyists and interest groups, belligerent and unilateralist.”
—unless there is an alternate explanation, I’ll again assume that this came from the voices in your head.

“there is a fundamental flaw with the legal system and it needs a lot of work whether it is applied in the context of a new democracy or the current system.”
—and then, like a lightning bolt from the sky, you say the occasional thing that makes sense. This statement I agree with, and have said so in the past.

Do you include Mao and the Gang of Four as “small circles of experienced policy-makers” too?

mobs are rational and intelligent entities

I only know that my vote is as equal as someone else’s. The point about me having the right to the polling station, without any fear, to express my preference. If my prefer candidate wins, good. If not, i accept that is what the majority of my fellow voters wanted. What is so evil and wrong about that?

What about Costa Rica? or Mauritius? How come they are less corrupt than China?

No, 51% is not “the people”.

The bigger problem is when the autocrats and power elites refuse to accept the outcome of the 51% and reacted with violence. Remember that fateful 1990 election in Burma where Aung San Suu Kyi had won?

To SP2,
speaking about going to vote without fear, Iraqis had an election yesterday, replete with bombings of polling stations and at least 38 killed. There must be something in the new-found sense of democracy and the existence of democratic rights that augments the courage of the people. By contrast, it saddens me to see the complacency of voters in the US and Canada, who, for reasons unknown, make the legitimate but disappointing choice of forgoing their right to vote.

As Merp reads this, he is probably realizing for the first time that, oh, that’s right, the majority isn’t 51% of the voters, it’s merely 51% of the votes, and those aren’t even the same thing. This will probably initiate another barrage of illogical and irrelevant comments about the US/Canadian system.

SKC
He’s a fundy. Have you ever tried arguing with a religious kook? Trust me, it’s the same.

He lives in the US by choice and loves how he lives but hates the fact that it jars with his conceptions. Same with the fundy – they live and love all the trappings of modern life yet hate the thought that the Bible had nothing to do with them.
It’s the same shit, just a different package.

Since this list was complied in 1995, no nondemocratic regimes have joined Singapore in the top ten ranking.

Many of them have been pressured or guided by the US into democracy, while many democracies have been overthrown by the US as well.

The bigger problem is when the autocrats and power elites refuse to accept the outcome of the 51% and reacted with violence. Remember that fateful 1990 election in Burma where Aung San Suu Kyi had won?

What do you call America’s overthrow/assassinations of Mossadegh, Lumumba and Allende then? I don’t see how this is strictly a CCP issue.

@S.KFurthermore, how this applies to China is anyone’s guess

It applies because democracy is unable to correct the worst human rights violation in history. It doesn’t lower corruption, doesn’t create economic growth, doesn’t provide basic sanitation or nutrition so you’re going to have to use a different angle.

it’s 2010; not 1610. Time to re-calibrate your watch.

And they still hate you.

you might say the same about China in Tibet. And that happened within the current lifetime for many people, and not generations ago.

Except the Tibetans have literally been dependent on China since the 1600s for defense and subsidies, and there was next to no armed resistance to the “invasion”.

So are you at least going to acknowledge that you’re liberally borrowing from Chomsky?

No? Are you going to admit to parroting American MSM?

Too bad the CCP doesn’t care so much about them, and only about herself.

How do you explain them lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty then in the past few decades then? Creating the fastest economic growth in human history? Motivated by corruption and personal gain? Corruption in the CCP is no worse than in India, America, Russia, Brazil, etc etc. Unless you want to count the multi-trillion dollar Iraq War as something transparent.

you seem to be forgetting the rest of Europe, for starters. My, you sure have selective comprehension…to go along with selective reading.

Oh yes, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. Or Sweden and Norway.

it’s about democracy and how it’s superior to the CCP from the perspective of people in China.

You have yet to offer anything in support of your argument. And again, it’s pretty obvious- you’re just slow and have terrible reading comprehension. Please tell me how Natives think Canada’s “democracy” is so superior, considering their ethnic interests are voted down.

Would you accept Tibetan interests coming to a vote vs. a non-Tibetan majority?

is there an echo in here? Are you a broken MP3 player stuck on repeat? See above in this comment, and you might as well see all the comments I’ve made to you to date. Is anybody home? While you’re fixing your flash memory, you might want to upload a program for mathematics, or perhaps statistics. It’d do you some good.

I’m going to repeat it until you realize how stupid your argument is. Your claim was that you living in Canada was an argument in support of democracy. The truth is you only live there because it avails to you all the comforts and benefits Canada built on hundreds of years of mass murder and disenfranchisement.

I wonder if the politburo is smarter than 90% of Chinese people?

Probably not.

What I said, many times, is who gets to determine what expertise is desired, and who possesses such expertise. I say it should be the people.

No, you say it should be the mob. I say it should be the obvious- expertise, track record, testing, moderated with rule of law and transparent, public scrutiny.

we’re talking about “real world”. Have you seen it?

Yes and rule of law exists in Singapore as well. Any more nonsense claims you want to make?

All I said is that corruption is not a good metric for determining whether democracy is good/bad

No, you said that corruption taints the concept of democracy but is not inherent to democracy itself. Both meaningless and unsubstantiated, which was obviously my point. You are just vomiting the standard democratic brainwashing.

You might want to spend some more time instead on your logic, and math.

Are you saying you’re a sociopath or something? No wonder you’re so fascinated with the power of mobs. People are not just numbers on paper.

Democracy is great because it allows the people to make decisions concerning how they themselves will be governed.

No it doesn’t. It gives about half the people the ability to restrict the rights of political, ethnic, whatever minorities. It opens up channels for high level bribery. It gives incentive for big companies to brainwash and deceive.

Is it perfect? Of course not.

Really, would this be an acceptable defense for anything?

Are people fallable and make mistakes? Certainly. But democracy also allows for people to correct their mistakes, in due course.

Fallible. Yes, theoretically they can correct their mistakes. But how often do they do it?

But the people, as the employer, should decide which experts they will employ.

You mean the mob. “They” vote mainly based on looks and religion. And media hype.

If you’ll notice, my points relate to the concept of democracy.

People have advocated the concept of fascism and Communism too. It turns out none of these things ever end up being worth having a revolution over.

Iraqis had an election yesterday, replete with bombings of polling stations and at least 38 killed. There must be something in the new-found sense of democracy and the existence of democratic rights that augments the courage of the people

What was the turnout? Is that counting the 1.2 million dead or 5 million refugees?

You seem to have this habit of just drawing strange, unsubstantiated conclusions.

@MikeHe lives in the US by choice and loves how he lives but hates the fact that it jars with his conceptions.

You guys are good at this ad hominem/unsourced claim thing. When your argument is pathetic, make shit up. Good strategy.

It might make you feel good about yourself, but it doesn’t change the fact that I won the argument and made you look like an idiot.

“You guys are good at this ad hominem/unsourced claim thing. When your argument is pathetic, make shit up. Good strategy.”
You don’t live in the US then? I seem to recall you saying you did live there…

“It might make you feel good about yourself, but it doesn’t change the fact that I won the argument and made you look like an idiot.”
Hahahahahahah! Nice try but no dice. You’re on a hiding to nothing and losing. Saying you “won” something doesn’t mean you have. Shall we have a show of hands?

How do you explain them lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty then in the past few decades then? Creating the fastest economic growth in human history? Motivated by corruption and personal gain?

Deng maybe great, but he and the Party are not altruistic saints. The party reformers did what they had to, especially after the years of self-inflicted destruction orchestrated by Mao and his henchmen. They acted out of enlightened self-interest because they feared that if they don’t act fast, they will end up like the Soviet empire.

About

A peculiar hybrid of personal journal, dilettantish punditry, pseudo-philosophy and much more, from an Accidental Expat who has made his way from Hong Kong to Beijing to Taipei and finally back to Beijing for reasons that are still not entirely clear to him…